You see; if only Moshman (or any other poker writer) had you as an editor.
I don't object to the use of the word "probably" per se, and I don't think that I misused it there. We had the discussion, we came to a tentative conclusion that we thought likely to be true. hence the use of the word "probably".
Compare this to a footnote on page 20 of Flynn Mehta and Miller, including the line "if you bet $100, most players will give up all but their best hands". That's just a mish-mash of non-numbers. It might be true, but what is "most"? 51% or 99%. And what is "best"? top 5%? top 40%?
In other words, linguistic non-specific probability words have their place, and this is one of them :-)
Moshman's mis-step is only minor, but it leads to a conclusion that appears firmer than it should be. Politicians and statisticians do it all the time. Moshman isn't alone.
no subject
Date: 2008-11-28 12:33 pm (UTC)I don't object to the use of the word "probably" per se, and I don't think that I misused it there. We had the discussion, we came to a tentative conclusion that we thought likely to be true. hence the use of the word "probably".
Compare this to a footnote on page 20 of Flynn Mehta and Miller, including the line "if you bet $100, most players will give up all but their best hands". That's just a mish-mash of non-numbers. It might be true, but what is "most"? 51% or 99%. And what is "best"? top 5%? top 40%?
In other words, linguistic non-specific probability words have their place, and this is one of them :-)
Moshman's mis-step is only minor, but it leads to a conclusion that appears firmer than it should be. Politicians and statisticians do it all the time. Moshman isn't alone.
PJ