Mores

Members
  • Content Count

    97
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

Mores last won the day on March 22

Mores had the most liked content!

About Mores

  • Rank
    Advanced Member

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Mores

    Let's play a game.....

    You gave two conditions that are of note: 1) The other person with whom I am playing is rational and logical. I took that to mean that they could figure out all the combinations of strategies just as well as I can or better. 2) The game goes on until one of us quits. Given those conditions, we would both conclude that playing on all numbers brings the most benefit to both of us -- automatically (assuming we play sufficient rounds to allow the laws of probability to even things out.
  2. Mores

    Let's play a game.....

    There is one more part of the rules that we haven't focused on: If you both play always or if you both play >0, then it can go on and on and on and continue making money. It is only a question of how fast it is coming to you. If one decides to break the deal and only play >0 while you play always, then at some point one person will quit. This will limit the other person's winnings. With that in mind, if @Vort and @zil are both rational and logical people, it is in both contestants' best interest to play always and not faint.
  3. Mores

    Let's play a game.....

    That is correct. You are correct, I had some errors in my math as well. I had a mix-up because I altered the order of options. The correct outcome is to take your chart and multiply the subtotal by 2.5 (for 10 rounds). Thus Both play: $500You play >0: $750Opp play >0: $0Both play >0: $250 So, we see which one is the worst outcome. You do NOT want to play always if your opponent plays >0. If you want to introduce game theory, look, the question is whether you'll pool your money or not. If pooled, your numbers look like this: Both play: $1000 ====== Each of you gets $500 One plays>0: $750 ====== One gets $750; The other gets $0; Split, each gets $375 Both play>0:$500 ====== Each get $250 So, then it becomes a question of what happens when the first person gets a zero. That person must decide whether they will take the chance at getting $0 with the other guy getting $750. Then we realize that this becomes more a question of tactics than strategy. in a 10 round game, it really is largely dependent upon randomness. But in a longer game (say 500 rounds) you can work it out additional probability options, like playing only on a 2 (5 more columns in your table). That is your weapon against the guy who gets his first zero after you.
  4. Mores

    Let's play a game.....

    OK, so the real question then becomes: What can you do on the first round to signal who is going to play >0 and who will play always. Since no talking is allowed at the table, you can't openly collude. But logic must still win out. Actually, it isn't the first round. You both play until one of you sees a zero. Whomever is the first one to see the zero will be the one who plays all the time. The other plays only when >0. Then you can split it. Or if you don't, then the other person would win anyway because of the way the bets would turn out anyway.
  5. Mores

    Let's play a game.....

    You seem to have an error in the final column. While I thought I understood game theory, I'm not sure how that would change the laws of probability. And game theory doesn't really matter since neither of you are "against" each other. You're against the dealer. Corrected income out of 10 rounds, Both play: $500 You play >0: $750 Opp play >0: $500 Both play >0: $0 Neither of you knows which route the other will take. But the sure fire way for you to "lose" is both of you to play >0. Given that, I'd take any of the other options. The best option is for the two of you to work together. One plays >0 and the other plays all the time. Then split.
  6. Mores

    Let's play a game.....

    Mathematically correct. But logically unsound. If you are paired with someone who has similar math skills and training in probability, they will take the same tactic (only pass on a zero). Thus the ratio of played : presented rounds is 50%. So, of 10 shuffles, 5 cards are played by both parties. Of those five, you will get an average of half of them in your favor. So, you will receive only $250 (statistically speaking). So, whether you're playing from a common pool of money or if you are separate, it is better to have both players play every time.
  7. Mores

    Let's play a game.....

    I'm not certain what is going on here. I need a visual. Are you the dealer? And you hold the card between the two players so each of them see opposite sides of the same card? If that is so, then both players ought to always play on every card. Just look at the numbers. I'm not seeing a downside.
  8. Mores

    Nonbeliever's questions about your faith

    Could be. But I'd rebut with: A) I'm not sure if that is so. B) I did not perceive this aspect as being in answer to M_M's question.
  9. Mores

    Nonbeliever's questions about your faith

    That pretty much always happens when we come from different world views. When dealing with people of different viewpoints, we need to look for the fundamental points that we either agree or disagree on which affect the point at hand. You seem to have indicated that your stance on gay marriage is based on a fundamental principle of "mutual adult consent." I dismiss that as a fundamental principle. In an earlier post I indicated several examples of why things can be done with mutual consent, and still be wrong. But that wasn't enough to change how you thought about it. Yet, I could hope that you at least recognized then that mutual consent is insufficient to be the sole qualifier of right and wrong. If you can come to that agreement (that there is more to right and wrong than mutual consent) then we can have a further discussion. If you can't, then that's the end of the discussion.
  10. Mores

    Nonbeliever's questions about your faith

    How so? When I grew up my Catholic relatives stated that their theological position was that sex was ONLY for procreation. That's why they didn't believe in any form of birth control other than monthly timing. Maybe or maybe not. I don't really know what motivated her question. I was just answering the question she asked the best I could. She specifically asked "why" something in her paradigm could be considered wrong. So, I pointed out that the paradigm ignores certain physical and biological realities. And I was trying to point to how those realities affect or are affected by our spirits and our overall spiritual nature. Perhaps I didn't articulate that clearly enough. But I did my best.
  11. Mores

    Nonbeliever's questions about your faith

    Thank you for that explanation. But I'm curious. What did you think I conceded that you've addressed here. I admit that I did not address the eternal aspect. But this was in response mainly to a non-member's point of view. So, I omitted it. But I'm not sure where I conceded anything that wasn't correct.
  12. Mores

    Nonbeliever's questions about your faith

    Well, it appears that the current guidance is not the same as I grew up with. https://www.lds.org/study/liahona/2012/03/youth/to-the-point/can-nonmembers-take-the-sacrament?lang=eng While it does not negate what I said, it seems more open than what I was taught.
  13. Mores

    The LGBT stumbling block.

    This is very insightful. One thing I recall from some study I did a while back is that the current practice of Islam includes claiming victimhood. As I understand it, the actual Koran based Islam doesn't teach this. Instead it teaches taking divine right (sounds familiar). But the victimhood thing is really taking off. A friend of mine who is an immigrant from Iran says that it is just a political ploy. In their private lives they know they aren't victims of anything. They just play the victim card for pure propaganda. Nothing more. That is quite myopic of them. I don't believe that for a second. Women and minorities are already in power in the Democrat party. And they're not complaining about that. As I recall, a recent announcement was made by key Democrats that the male presidential candidates should step aside and let the women handle the election. No men. I don't see any protests from any men about that. I don't see anyone coming across party lines over that. Instead, I see Jewish Democrats siding with Muslims over anti-Semitic remarks made by members of Congress.
  14. Mores

    The LGBT stumbling block.

    This is something that gives me both confusion and pause. Think about why they cow tow to Muslims. Islam is completely incompatible with leftist ideology. It is more incompatible than Republican ideology. There is SOME other force at work. Think of every single tenet of left. What position (other than "tolerance of all but the Republicans") is there that Muslims share? I can't think of one. They share more with Republicans than Muslims. Yet they go out of their way to protect Muslims while they attack Republicans. Why? I admit I lack some imagination. But in the light of their recent anti-Semitic turn, I am beginning to believe that is the real reason.
  15. Mores

    Nonbeliever's questions about your faith

    I believe that all the reasons why gay marriage have become so popular lately is that people have completely lost track of what sex and marriage are about. While we acknowledge that children/family are a part of that, I don't think people give that idea enough importance. I'm not advocating the orthodox Catholic idea that sex is "ONLY" for procreation, but I do tend to think that we push procreation too far down on the importance scale. Having children is a big deal. Marriage is a big deal. And they do go hand-in-hand. Yes, one could make the argument that even heterosexual couples can be infertile. And that's true. But that is because of a malfunction in the system, like someone being being blind or deaf. We all know the way things are supposed to function. And we recognize when it fails for reasons beyond our control. We also know that a gay union was NEVER INTENDED to produce offspring. This is not a malfunction of the system. IT IS THE SYSTEM! That's the way it was designed. Work arounds, like adoption are supposed to make up for the malfunctions in the system. They are not supposed to be used for denying the system exists. What about simply strengthening the union? That's another good point. There is no physical mechanism present in gay unions that will increase that bond. I don't want to violate "child friendly" policies of the site, so I won't go into detail. But there are physical realities that will allow heterosexual couples to truly "be one" in that act. There are no such mechanisms in gay unions. Not only that, but I'd say that to be truly one in spirit is also impossible in gay unions because they can never be one in Christ.