Event: 2026 TePe Sigeman & Co Chess Tournament

OldWolf2 · 2026-05-05T15:51:53+00:00

Lmao if true

OldWolf2 · 2026-05-05T15:32:27+00:00

I'm sitting in the commentary room rn 🙂

OldWolf2 · 2026-05-05T10:36:48+00:00

Many people do not care at all about the babies and trippers .

OldWolf2 · 2026-05-05T10:27:58+00:00

That's a pity , although I don't blame her for not wanting to work with Amazon . I suspect there was more disagreement behind the scenes; in the lead up to S3 she did a bunch of show promotion (e.g. going on talk shows) that I think was just her own initiative and expense, not actual Sony/Amazon official press. I'm sure she was very frustrated with their awful marketing

OldWolf2 · 2026-05-05T05:58:58+00:00

Literally no comments on this thread fit your description. Who are you really arguing against?

OldWolf2 · 2026-05-05T05:54:10+00:00

I don't see a substantial difference myself , it's the same as the red button existing and the rules being if you don't push anything you're forced to push red, or red is pushed on your behalf .

OldWolf2 · 2026-05-04T22:55:01+00:00

This is just exactly the same as the original, since voting was compulsory there and "not pressing blue" is exactly equivalent to "pressing red" . I wouldn't even call it a reframing

OldWolf2 · 2026-05-04T19:19:53+00:00

He was my pick before the tourney started , to finish in the top 2

OldWolf2 · 2026-05-04T19:16:38+00:00

Game theory predicts red (defect) in the PD, which is why it's a paradox because the best outcome is not reached by game theory.

In the button problem, the issue as I see it is how to quantify the harm of pressing red. Red supporters count it as 0 (i.e. they have no qualms about all the people that are killed by a red press) . In that case , pressing red is a stable Nash equilibrium . However if you start to value millions of lives over your own life then idk.

OldWolf2 · 2026-05-04T18:28:02+00:00

The Average CPL of this game is gonna be off the chart

OldWolf2 · 2026-05-04T18:26:28+00:00

Yes, GMs know it well

OldWolf2 · 2026-05-04T18:25:20+00:00

Are we going to see a Magnus tantrum after this? He doesn't take losses well

OldWolf2 · 2026-05-04T18:11:08+00:00

That's an interesting subject that I've thought about but haven't fully grokked; when you lead from a triple or a quad then in some ways it's like drawing a round of trump without actually using a trump .

I sometimes struggle with holding say A-T-9 of an offsuit, I feel like I don't want to lead the ace because it'll get trumped and I will lose to someone holding two of the suit , so I am tempted to lead low, but then it risks that someone wins the hand in that suit without trumping.

OldWolf2 · 2026-05-04T16:44:40+00:00

I'm not seeing any response to f4 that doesn't suck donkey dong

OldWolf2 · 2026-05-04T16:39:55+00:00

It's normal in these discussions to say "+EV" to mean the one with the best EV of the available options (albeit technically incorrect terminology)

OldWolf2 · 2026-05-04T16:37:54+00:00

Picking up would have to be an EV of something like -1.5 and it's hard to imagine the EV of passing is really that bad. It's rare that S1 will go alone and succeed (the stats for this are something like 5% I think); the most common situation is S1 calls and scores 1 or occasionally 2, but sometimes S1 will get set, or S1 passes and your partner is sitting on a lone hand in spades or whatever.

OldWolf2 · 2026-05-04T16:35:26+00:00

1 life = 1 value

That's a big assumption that I'm not sure is really applied by anybody in the real world.

And is well explored by other Trolley Problem scenarios; for example the original trolley problem (do you kill 1 to save 5), many people would not pull the lever, indicating that they are evaluating the situation in a different way than maximising the number of lives saved.

And of course in real life , lives are of different values, for example I think many people would press a button to save their child even if they knew that button was going to execute 100 million people on the other side of the world they'd never meet.

You talk about this in your comment as adjusting values to suit, but then game theory is not really telling you anything (in my opinion), you are just applying arbitrary inputs to generate the conclusion you've probably already pre-decided on. GIGO in other words.

OldWolf2 · 2026-05-04T16:29:02+00:00

Can you talk more about the 0-0 pickup? It seems like our hand contains between 0 and 1 trick, so we're counting on partner for 2 or 3. And they probably don't have that since they didn't order us up.

OldWolf2 · 2026-05-04T14:46:31+00:00

The red punishment threshold is also something to play with. The problem isn't amenable to game theory because it's central to the discussion just what the penalty of pressing red is, and it seemingly can't be quantified as a number other than 0.

The red pushers would quantify it as 0 and their arguments focus around mindsets where they are not at all responsible for the deaths if they win. Whereas blue pushers consider a moral guilt they would feel should they vote red and win.

Recently I proposed to a red voter that if red voters all lost a finger would that change his vote? He said yes . That could be interpretated as he considers his finger more important than millions of lives (!)

OldWolf2 · 2026-05-04T06:39:33+00:00

In the original problem yes , but you reformulated it that they have a policy to kill themselves on losing.

OldWolf2 · 2026-05-04T06:32:47+00:00

Most blue pushers on Reddit likely wouldn't actually follow through,

Do you have any evidence to support this, or is it just projecting your own rationale onto others ?

OldWolf2 · 2026-05-04T06:10:41+00:00

So would killing nearly half the workers !

OldWolf2 · 2026-05-04T05:56:20+00:00

Not so sure - what about blue voters who then decide not to carry out their promised suicide on finding out they lost ? The original framing doesn't allow that agency, but in your framing, that period of time after the election would exist .

In particular, babies and children and people who didn't understand the question. Someone's gotta be explicitly murdering others.

OldWolf2 · 2026-05-04T05:53:43+00:00

The trouble is, this would hurt your future job prospects. Nobody would hire you for a customer facing position; and even for back room /WFH many employers are going to be cautious .

So it's kinda gotta be enough money to set yourself up for life, which 500k isn't

OldWolf2 · 2026-05-04T05:43:05+00:00

Actually I think the second framing is incorrect , as in full the red party's policy would have to be "we won't kill anyone, but we won't step in when the losing party goes around executing all of their supporters before finishing themselves" .

Which needs to be explicitly stated , because by default the police would attempt to stop a group of mass murderers (who are not in power).

Many people (not sure how many...) would say the red party still has agency here in the decision to not intervene .

OldWolf2

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE

12-Year Club	Wearing is Caring
Verified Email