In predicate logic, an existential quantification is the predication of a property or relation to at least one member of the domain. It is denoted by the logical operator symbol ∃ (pronounced "there exists" or "for some" ) , which is called the existential quantifier. Existential quantification is distinct from universal quantification ("for all" ) , which asserts that the property or relation holds for any members of the domain.
Alot to take in, I know. I think its easier to comprehend in a formula:
Consider a formula that states that some natural number multiplied by itself is 25. 0·0 = 25, or 1·1 = 25, or 2·2 = 25, or 3·3 = 25, and so on. This would seem to be a logical disjunction because of the repeated use of "or". However, the "and so on" makes this impossible to integrate and to interpret as a disjunction in formal logic. Instead, the statement could be rephrased more formally as For some natural number n, n·n = 25. This is a single statement using existential quantification. This statement is more precise than the original one, as the phrase "and so on" does not necessarily include all natural numbers, and nothing more. Since the domain was not stated explicitly, the phrase could not be interpreted formally. In the quantified statement, on the other hand, the natural numbers are mentioned explicitly. This particular example is true, because 5 is a natural number, and when we substitute 5 for n, we produce "5·5 = 25", which is true. It does not matter that "n·n = 25" is only true for a single natural number, 5; even the existence of a single solution is enough to prove the existential quantification true. In contrast, "For some even number n, n·n = 25" is false, because there are no even solutions. The domain of discourse, which specifies which values the variable n is allowed to take, is therefore of critical importance in a statement's trueness or falseness. Logical conjunctions are used to restrict the domain of discourse to fulfill a given predicate. For example: For some positive odd number n, n·n = 25 is logically equivalent to For some natural number n, n is odd and n·n = 25. Here, "and" is the logical conjunction. In symbolic logic, "∃" (a backwards letter "E" in a sans-serif font) is used to indicate existential quantification.[2] Thus, if P(a, b, c) is the predicate "a·b = c" and is the set of natural numbers, then
is the (true) statement For some natural number n, n·n = 25. Similarly, if Q(n) is the predicate "n is even", then
is the (false) statement For some natural number n, n is even and n·n = 25. In mathematics, the proof of a "some" statement may be achieved either by a constructive proof, which exhibits an object satisfying the "some" statement, or by a nonconstructive proof which shows that there must be such an object but without exhibiting one.
You're probably thinking so what's this got to do with rigtards? I think it has a fair amount to do with them considering most of them think they're so unlucky. Or come up with conspiracy theories of how the site is rigged and they know how to manipulate it. I think if you're are one of those In this circumstance, your're just an existential quantifier. To make up the numbers that the poker gods deal. Because there always has to be one. To those who don't get the harsh end of the spectrum, this may also help to avoid a tilt from losing to a lucky donk.
Confirmation bias (also called confirmatory bias, myside bias or verification bias) is a tendency of people to favor information that confirms their beliefs or hypotheses.[Note 1][1] People display this bias when they gather or remember information selectively, or when they interpret it in a biased way. The effect is stronger for emotionally charged issues and for deeply entrenched beliefs. For example, in reading about gun control, people usually prefer sources that affirm their existing attitudes. They also tend to interpret ambiguous evidence as supporting their existing position. Biased search, interpretation and memory have been invoked to explain attitude polarization (when a disagreement becomes more extreme even though the different parties are exposed to the same evidence), belief perseverance (when beliefs persist after the evidence for them is shown to be false), the irrational primacy effect (a greater reliance on information encountered early in a series) and illusory correlation (when people falsely perceive an association between two events or situations). A series of experiments in the 1960s suggested that people are biased toward confirming their existing beliefs. Later work re-interpreted these results as a tendency to test ideas in a one-sided way, focusing on one possibility and ignoring alternatives. In certain situations, this tendency can bias people's conclusions. Explanations for the observed biases include wishful thinking and the limited human capacity to process information. Another explanation is that people show confirmation bias because they are weighing up the costs of being wrong, rather than investigating in a neutral, scientific way. Confirmation biases contribute to overconfidence in personal beliefs and can maintain or strengthen beliefs in the face of contrary evidence. Poor decisions due to these biases have been found in military, political, and organizational contexts.
Joined: Feb '11
Location: Canada
Age: 39 (M)
Posts: 1660
Lol^^
Good article Sadamman, if only we could get the entire world to not only just read but take what you've written to heart. The world would be a lot better and likely more agnostic a place.
Seriously basic philosophy and logic principles should be taught at a young age, they're just so important to development.
Joined: Jan '12
Location: United Kingdom
Age: 36 (M)
Posts: 1204
Posted by Arithmajik: Lol^^
Good article Sadamman, if only we could get the entire world to not only just read but take what you've written to heart. The world would be a lot better and likely more agnostic a place.
Seriously basic philosophy and logic principles should be taught at a young age, they're just so important to development.
I agree, anybody who wants to be good at poker in the long run, and not just poker, anything. Should ideally have a philosophical attitude. Not everything is as it seems, and some things which don't seem relative, can still help you relate to, and overcome certain anomalies.
Joined: Apr '11
Location: Romania
Age: 35 (M)
Posts: 6669
Pretty interesting read article but since here we learn to be good players i'm not sure that is really productive to learn why some people play so bad...
Never the less as i said it's a pretty interesting read
Joined: Jan '12
Location: United Kingdom
Age: 36 (M)
Posts: 1204
It's not really why they play bad but how they get caught in the destructive cycle of thinking. Plus also explaining, that although it seems improbable, donks and rigtards can have unbelievable ROI's. It's completely within the realms of possibility.
Joined: Apr '09
Location: Australia
Age: 40 (M)
Posts: 6483
Posted by sadamman:
Posted by marqis: Nice article... (+1)
I should point out that this applies to both the rigtards, as well as the anti-rigtards.
In fact it applies to anyone taking a non-agnostic view, or has gone through the trouble of measuring/proving it one way or the other.
Yes indeed. A fluent and agnostic piece of feedback as always from you.
Agnosticism is an ambiguous word.
I'm an atheist when it comes to religion and when it comes to online poker I sit pretty firmly in the "The RNG is not rigged camp". Now - it's not because I have a confirmation bias or in any other way are being pig headed about my views.
When it comes to both religion and poker I am taking a purely scientific/empirical outlook. It's not that I *know* poker isn't rigged, or that I *know* there is no god. It's just that I know, in both cases, that all that there is no evidence of a rigged RNG and no evidence of a god.
Now - by saying I am open to the possibility, doesn't really make me agnostic. That's like saying I am agnostic to the Flying Spaghetti monster, or a giant teacup orbiting the sun.
Joined: Jan '12
Location: United Kingdom
Age: 36 (M)
Posts: 1204
Posted by jessthehuman:
Posted by sadamman:
Posted by marqis: Nice article... (+1)
I should point out that this applies to both the rigtards, as well as the anti-rigtards.
In fact it applies to anyone taking a non-agnostic view, or has gone through the trouble of measuring/proving it one way or the other.
Yes indeed. A fluent and agnostic piece of feedback as always from you.
Agnosticism is an ambiguous word.
I'm an atheist when it comes to religion and when it comes to online poker I sit pretty firmly in the "The RNG is not rigged camp". Now - it's not because I have a confirmation bias or in any other way are being pig headed about my views.
When it comes to both religion and poker I am taking a purely scientific/empirical outlook. It's not that I *know* poker isn't rigged, or that I *know* there is no god. It's just that I know, in both cases, that all that there is no evidence of a rigged RNG and no evidence of a god.
Now - by saying I am open to the possibility, doesn't really make me agnostic. That's like saying I am agnostic to the Flying Spaghetti monster, or a giant teacup orbiting the sun.
I can see what your saying, the point I was trying to make with confirmation bias was aimed at rigtards not logical fellows like yourself. Even though if you ever get into one of these mindsets, or have before, you should know this and it should resonate with you, because logic goes out the window.
The point I was making with existential quantification was, even with substantial empirical data its still possible to get anomalies who would have misleading stat's considering their play. Hence the crazy theories about big stacks etc.
Please don't start petty arguments with people who mean no harm, as I respect your opinion, and don't want to lose that respect.
Joined: Feb '10
Location: Portugal
Age: 43 (M)
Posts: 998
Admistrator please close this kindf threads. Iam tired that suddenlyeverybody opens a thread about rigtard pleayer, newbies vs rigtards. I think we all know what is a rigtard now!!!!
Posted by jessthehuman: Agnosticism is an ambiguous word.
I'm an atheist when it comes to religion and when it comes to online poker I sit pretty firmly in the "The RNG is not rigged camp". Now - it's not because I have a confirmation bias or in any other way are being pig headed about my views.
When it comes to both religion and poker I am taking a purely scientific/empirical outlook. It's not that I *know* poker isn't rigged, or that I *know* there is no god. It's just that I know, in both cases, that all that there is no evidence of a rigged RNG and no evidence of a god.
Now - by saying I am open to the possibility, doesn't really make me agnostic. That's like saying I am agnostic to the Flying Spaghetti monster, or a giant teacup orbiting the sun.
I understand your argument, and concerning religion, I agree. Being agnostic about religion is a bit silly, as it's not defensible.
Online poker being rigged, is fundamentally different, in my opinion. I see little or no evidence for it being rigged, yet it is not totally silly to suppose it might be rigged. It is both possible as well as profitable for a poker site to cheat, without much risk of it being detected...
The argumentation (or lack thereof) being employed by the "rigtards", however, indeed is mostly silly (e.g. offering a few example hands as evidence).
I can't discount the possibility of online poker being rigged, merely because it's advocated by unscientific minds (to put it mildly).
I do feel it's very unlikely being rigged to the extent of changing otherwise winning players into losers, since that would most likely be easily detectable.
Joined: Apr '09
Location: Australia
Age: 40 (M)
Posts: 6483
Posted by marqis:
Posted by jessthehuman: Agnosticism is an ambiguous word.
I'm an atheist when it comes to religion and when it comes to online poker I sit pretty firmly in the "The RNG is not rigged camp". Now - it's not because I have a confirmation bias or in any other way are being pig headed about my views.
When it comes to both religion and poker I am taking a purely scientific/empirical outlook. It's not that I *know* poker isn't rigged, or that I *know* there is no god. It's just that I know, in both cases, that all that there is no evidence of a rigged RNG and no evidence of a god.
Now - by saying I am open to the possibility, doesn't really make me agnostic. That's like saying I am agnostic to the Flying Spaghetti monster, or a giant teacup orbiting the sun.
I understand your argument, and concerning religion, I agree. Being agnostic about religion is a bit silly, as it's not defensible.
Online poker being rigged, is fundamentally different, in my opinion. I see little or no evidence for it being rigged, yet it is not totally silly to suppose it might be rigged. It is both possible as well as profitable for a poker site to cheat, without much risk of it being detected...
The argumentation (or lack thereof) being employed by the "rigtards", however, indeed is mostly silly (e.g. offering a few example hands as evidence).
I can't discount the possibility of online poker being rigged, merely because it's advocated by unscientific minds (to put it mildly).
I do feel it's very unlikely being rigged to the extent of changing otherwise winning players into losers, since that would most likely be easily detectable.
Besides, rake already takes care of that...
completely agree.
------------ BTW - That is why I say "Agnosticism is ambiguous". It's always hard to know what is meant by it.
In religion - I am happy to identify as an Agnostic-Atheist, for example. But I am NOT an Agnostic-theist.
The difference being - somebody who assumes the lack of evidence for god indicates no god. And on the other hand - somebody who doesn't know who or what god is, but is fairly sure there is one. Such different concepts - and why I don't really like the word 'agnostic'.
Edited by jessthehuman (02 April 2012 @ 01:17 GMT)
Joined: Feb '12
Location: Netherlands
Age: 67 (F)
Posts: 46
Well i never had a confirmation bias against online poker years ago. I just experienced it and with logic and especialy common sense i felt something was wrong If the same stuff happens over and over again you start to see paterns Deposit 300 always win at first and then the hammer comes and you get f u kket in the A...over and over and over...
You people do go very far with this stuff using these difficult words so people think ...wow they must be right because i dont understand it at all...
Well i am not impressed at all using fancy words or formula's
You guys sure put in lots of effort in every day to come up with this kind of things
I mean someone actualy took time to make a pokerstars sign for JesstheHuman saying he's an employee of pokerstars then make a tread hoping people will react and then say its fake so they can "proove" these people are idiots and making people look like a fool Almost the same thing what SuperNoob did with his 9 SD deviation tread where just hoping people would react to it so again they could say the magic word....Rigtard...
And again this tread come on....is this interresting ?? Does this apply to every person. Do people want to read this ??..Keep it simple and clear and dont come with this BS I mean this is getting ridiculous...what a bunch of goatballs
Joined: Feb '12
Location: Canada
Age: 36 (M)
Posts: 228
Posted by mongo1976: sooooooo sick of these threads, really.
I do not get why someone would take the time to say they are sick of these threads I am immensely enjoying the reads and appreciate allthe work anyone takes to investigate something so we can better understand. Whether it be in the realm of poker or outer interest, pursuits, and goals life lessons are great wherever you find them.
Joined: Jan '12
Location: United Kingdom
Age: 36 (M)
Posts: 1204
Posted by aatje: Well i never had a confirmation bias against online poker years ago. I just experienced it and with logic and especialy common sense i felt something was wrong If the same stuff happens over and over again you start to see paterns Deposit 300 always win at first and then the hammer comes and you get f u kket in the A...over and over and over...
You people do go very far with this stuff using these difficult words so people think ...wow they must be right because i dont understand it at all...
Well i am not impressed at all using fancy words or formula's
You guys sure put in lots of effort in every day to come up with this kind of things
I mean someone actualy took time to make a pokerstars sign for JesstheHuman saying he's an employee of pokerstars then make a tread hoping people will react and then say its fake so they can "proove" these people are idiots and making people look like a fool Almost the same thing what SuperNoob did with his 9 SD deviation tread where just hoping people would react to it so again they could say the magic word....Rigtard...
And again this tread come on....is this interresting ?? Does this apply to every person. Do people want to read this ??..Keep it simple and clear and dont come with this BS I mean this is getting ridiculous...what a bunch of goatballs
Listen, I'm not defending a thead made to help people, if you don't understand it or don't like it f**k off, simple as.
Joined: Feb '12
Location: Canada
Age: 36 (M)
Posts: 228
Posted by aatje: Well i never had a confirmation bias against online poker years ago. I just experienced it and with logic and especialy common sense i felt something was wrong If the same stuff happens over and over again you start to see paterns Deposit 300 always win at first and then the hammer comes and you get f u kket in the A...over and over and over...
You people do go very far with this stuff using these difficult words so people think ...wow they must be right because i dont understand it at all...
Well i am not impressed at all using fancy words or formula's
You guys sure put in lots of effort in every day to come up with this kind of things
I mean someone actualy took time to make a pokerstars sign for JesstheHuman saying he's an employee of pokerstars then make a tread hoping people will react and then say its fake so they can "proove" these people are idiots and making people look like a fool Almost the same thing what SuperNoob did with his 9 SD deviation tread where just hoping people would react to it so again they could say the magic word....Rigtard...
And again this tread come on....is this interresting ?? Does this apply to every person. Do people want to read this ??..Keep it simple and clear and dont come with this BS I mean this is getting ridiculous...what a bunch of goatballs
The trick is to never be all-in you can always lose when all in, and as far as A yes it loses I rarely play them unless were talking AK AQ AJ and other than AK they better be flipping suited lol..... Small pockets will win the day 8/10 times if played right(in my experience anyway)
My rules always leave yourself a way out and play the pairs for trips or the low suited connectors for straights+flushes--never when expensive but always when affordable-- they willpay out more than the A-K-Q because you will have people betting big on pairs two pairs and trips and you willbe sitting on the straight---careful for flush unless you hit it
And one quick question to you as well aatje.... who has the gun to your head while you read these interesting forums which bother you so much? Or are you just having a bad time right now?
Joined: Feb '12
Location: Netherlands
Age: 67 (F)
Posts: 46
Posted by sadamman:
Posted by aatje: Well i never had a confirmation bias against online poker years ago. I just experienced it and with logic and especialy common sense i felt something was wrong If the same stuff happens over and over again you start to see paterns Deposit 300 always win at first and then the hammer comes and you get f u kket in the A...over and over and over...
You people do go very far with this stuff using these difficult words so people think ...wow they must be right because i dont understand it at all...
Well i am not impressed at all using fancy words or formula's
You guys sure put in lots of effort in every day to come up with this kind of things
I mean someone actualy took time to make a pokerstars sign for JesstheHuman saying he's an employee of pokerstars then make a tread hoping people will react and then say its fake so they can "proove" these people are idiots and making people look like a fool Almost the same thing what SuperNoob did with his 9 SD deviation tread where just hoping people would react to it so again they could say the magic word....Rigtard...
And again this tread come on....is this interresting ?? Does this apply to every person. Do people want to read this ??..Keep it simple and clear and dont come with this BS I mean this is getting ridiculous...what a bunch of goatballs
Listen, I'm not defending a thead made to help people, if you don't understand it or don't like it f**k off, simple as.
You are actualy right if you dont understand then F off yes...but i do understand What i dont understand is why someone would go so far to make "rigtard" look like they have a mental problem...
I think this is going too far making claims that people think online poker software are bogus have some kind of weird personality wich makes them idiots in poker
What if someone believes this is true and goes to a psych for it
Joined: Jan '12
Location: United Kingdom
Age: 36 (M)
Posts: 1204
Where did I say they have mental problems? I didn't. What I did say is, they could be special, and these 'manipulations of software' could seem real and work for them, and nobody else. It's completely within the realms of possibility.
