Skrum; you claimed that you could see the results of people's trading of funds; and determine which transactions were rational and which were irrational.

I've made my case quite clear that you cannot. I've provided ample evidence that you cannot. In fact; I'm unable to argue the point anymore because I've said everything I could possibly say on the topic.

Sure you could all the people who didn't go all in didn't act rationally; but you can't say anything about the people who did go all in. Some may have acted rationally; and others may have acted irrationally but picked the right choice anyway.

It's actually quite surprising to me that we are unable to agree on this; as it appears to be common sense.

Here is a hypothetical question; you are a police officer responding to gunshots at a residential home. You arrive and find a man dead and another man standing with a gun. The man says that he shot the man. Was this a rational act?

Go do your wizardry and tell me the answer.

should be "Sure you could SAY all the people who didn't go all-in acted irrationally ..."

Btw; Chase you are misusing the word semantics. It would be an argument about semantics if we disagreed on the definition of "rational". But seeing as we both agree on the definition; the argument is not over semantics.

For example; if you disagree with me about your misuse of the word; we would then be arguing over semantics.

Glad I could help. :p

Also Chase I believe you are referring to quantum physics and subatomic particles.

Nvm you are; I misread. Yeah quantum physics is still a very mysterious field at the moment.

SKRUM WROTE: By your own definition, if you are found to have had pocket aces after your having not called an all-in, you have not acted rationally. We don't need to know what you were thinking.



MY REPLY: You're forgetting a satellite where everyone wins the same prize. If the top 10 "win" and there are 11 players left and you're 2nd in chips and the only player who has you covered shoves all-in, you fold those Aces, it's rational because you have nothing to gain and everything to lose.

Deadcode, the intensity with which you seek external validation for what you suppose are your intelectual skills really disturbs me. You crave this kind of attention and the more you try to lecture an internet game forum on topics like sub-atomic particles, finance, economicsm scientific method and international relations, the more you show that you don't have the habit of reading any quality material (beyond blog pundits and wiki) in these areas.

Just thought I would get that out of my chest. The way you present yourself for anyone who has real contact with any of these areas isn't pretty (think of dddy repeatedly insisting on how awesome his vacations were, or his job is, before anyone asks him)

dead:

Here is a paper written by two professors at the University of Iowa:

http://ideas.repec.org/a/inm/ormnsc/v50y2004i3p336-351.html

Its title is "Suckers Are Born but Markets Are Made: Individual Rationality, Arbitrage, and Market Efficiency on an Electronic Futures Market"

Grandgnu:

I have never played Texas Hold 'em but dead was restricting his example to a "cash game" which in my limited knowledge is not the same as a tournament.

It may take a lot of work to show that someone is rational but you don't have to be very bright to show that someone is irrational. If it is in fact true that it is irrational not to go all in if you have pocket aces, and I observe that someone has pocket aces (I have watched a few episodes of World Series of Poker where the viewers can see the player's pocket cards as he picks them up) and that player does not go all-in, then I, even with my minimal knowledge of the game, know that the player has acted irrationally.

In the policeman example, I am not sure whether you are asking about whether the shooting was rational or whether his having said he shot the man was rational, but there is a TV program called "America's Dumbest Criminals."