[lbo-talk] DC: Costs of big marches

[tfast at yorku.ca]

Just to stick with the poker analogy.  Probability is only part of the game. 
There is also the bluff.  Good poker players dont win simply because they are
calculating the probabilities of getting the cards they need on the flop.  They
also win because they make guesses about the strength of their opponents hand
and guesses about their ability to convince other players about the strength of
their own hand.  A strict probability approach (vis-a-vis ones own hand) will
have you folding all night long and yes you are sure to lose less money but you
are sure to go home with less than you bought in for.

This being said, if the only measure of a marches success is Wojtek's maximalist
position (ie; the capitalist class is scared into shitting their pants and
immediately giving up concessions) then even a strong hand and a good bluff
"probably" will not achieve success according to the above criteria.

And the "probably" in the above sentence is key because Wojtek, being the master
of probabilities that he is, knows that it would be exceedingly hard "i.e.,
there is a low probability" of anyone finding evidence to the contrary which
could beat his maximalist criteria for success.  But then that is how Wojtek
frames most of his arguments/rants.  Like his buddies we should stop playing
with him.

Travis

Quoting Wojtek Sokolowski <sokol at jhu.edu>:


> John Adams:
> > Yes, the analogy is flawed. Still: If you don't bet, you can't win.
>
> Yeah, I am familiar with the notion of probability - probably more so than
> most folk.  Last time I played poker with a bunch of buddies they kicked me
> out of the game because I consistently refused to bet on what saw as a weak
> hand.  Guess what, a couple hours later the guy who kicked me out was
> penniless whereas I kept my funds.
>
> Betting to win is one thing, but betting against all odds borders on
> stupidity.
>
> Wojtek>
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>