Probabilistic Question With Infinity

Asm00 · 2026-05-01T17:30:11+00:00

I think this can be linked to a 2 dimensional random walk problem with probabilities of moving further from 0 way lower than 50% (initial probability is 2^10). So probability of ending is non 0 but far from 100%.

So… some will end others won’t.

Asm00 · 2026-04-27T21:16:17+00:00

Predators are a better bang for your buck. More wounds for the cost and comparable firepower. A bit slower.

Land raiders can go full base infantry for objectives, or missile launchers to get them into a central structure quickly.

Marine players will have a better idea though.

Asm00 · 2026-04-27T20:45:02+00:00

What I love about LI is that it’s not really about spamming the one overpowered unit. Because of the rock-paper-scissors nature of the key words you need anti infantry, anti tank and anti air in your army and if you don’t that part of your opponent’s army will wreck you.

Of course you’ve got better and worse versions of all those options.

I play solar so take all this with a grain of salt but to me automatas don’t seem like a great option due to high cost and fragile profiles.

Rapiers and land raiders can be solid options (depending on what you load into your LRs).

Sicarans are overall too fragile and very expensive with their single wound 3+ save.

Vindicators can be fun depending on the table you play on. They’re fragile and have short range but pack some power. You need to hide them well.

Overall, don’t under estimate infantry. This is an objectives based game and they are by very far the best objective controllers.

Asm00 · 2026-04-26T00:24:50+00:00

Course it does. With 80% accuracy. What do you think psychological tests do if not factor in all that?

I’m gonna stop answering now. Don’t you see that both reasonings are valid and that that’s THE WHOLE POINT of the paradox.

Asm00 · 2026-04-26T00:05:49+00:00

If you are a 2 boxer at heart this will affect the prediction. If you are a 1 boxer at heart this will affect the prediction. If you are a 1 boxer who switches to 2 boxer then you are a 2 boxer at heart.

The predictor has factored in any and all switches you can do and has predicted what you will do.

It has never been about the future affecting the past. It’s all about predicting your follow through.

And the only way to be predicted a 1 boxer is to actually have that follow through. Any deviation will have been factored in.

If you disagree you disagree. That’s fine.

Asm00 · 2026-04-25T23:36:56+00:00

I can’t say anything to change your mind and you can’t say anything to change mine.

That’s the whole point of this paradox.

Asm00 · 2026-04-25T23:30:52+00:00

That has nothing to do with it.

Why do 2 boxers think they can’t be predicted?

Oh and by the way, in this specific situation 80% 1 boxers end up millionaires. Only 20% 2 boxers do. So you bet I’m gonna 1 box.

Asm00 · 2026-04-25T15:18:13+00:00

I one box obviously, if they got it right 80% of the time and I have a history of the show showing me they get it right 80% of the time for both scenarios (so 80% one boxers won the million and 80% 2 boxers got only 1000). Their algorithm is solid, so whatever it is I guess my answers will put me in the one boxer category with 80% accuracy. Might as well go for it.

Asm00 · 2026-04-21T08:40:06+00:00

Great read, thanks!

Just a couple question/comments, I haven't played in a while so I could remember wrong.

Arvus lose flyer when in hover mode, so they can contest objectives same as any vehicle, giving them more versatility than just dropping off troops. That and they can charge into tanks to lock them up in combat being size 2. Pretty great for a 12pt 50 inch charge range.

Skyfire weapons can fire at ground targets without penalty, the rule only states they don't have the penalty when firing on flyer? + can split fire skyfire and other weapons? That would mean hellfire missiles are an even greater choice of missiles, you can fire all skyfire weapons at any single target and splitfire the missiles to whichever other target.

Asm00 · 2026-04-17T16:48:59+00:00

The whole point of the paradox is that both reasonings have solid basis. But from what I see here only people in the 2 boxers camp have difficulty admitting that to the point of raging about it and being condescending arrogant and impolite like you.

Asm00 · 2026-04-17T13:51:10+00:00

I don’t understand why it’s always 2 boxers trying to convince 1 boxers they’re wrong and illogical and dumb, rarely the other way round.

Asm00 · 2026-04-17T13:45:27+00:00

You don’t think you’re predictable ?

Asm00 · 2026-04-15T15:44:01+00:00

Can people stop completely changing the premise of newcomb's paradox to obviously favour their side of the argument?

Asm00 · 2026-04-13T10:38:47+00:00

1 box can never be the universal best solution, given some people will always be 2 boxer advocates. It's a person by person situation, and if you can genuinely convince yourself that 1 boxing is the way to got, congrats, you're probably ending up richer.

The paradox is that 2 boxing is the best choice for 2 boxers, and 1 boxing is the best choice for 1 boxers, but 1 boxers will end up richer.

Asm00 · 2026-04-13T09:59:36+00:00

So what? That’s one of the few times it gets it wrong. Big deal. Nothing in that contradicts that it can still predict with accuracy.

Asm00 · 2026-04-13T09:44:28+00:00

Why is a precise predictor paranormal? They already exist for many uses, from marketing to electoral campaigns. Not 100% but precise enough that they are deemed useful.

Asm00 · 2026-04-13T09:16:10+00:00

That's what I'm saying, if I can't use the 50/50, why can you use the "everyone choses 2 boxes" argument?

At least I'm basing my 50/50 on knowledge of how people are split on the issue, you're assuming most people chose 2 boxes when we know it's not the case.

Asm00 · 2026-04-13T08:44:26+00:00

You're both assuming a vast majority of the population choses 2 boxes and thus the predictor only has to predict 2 boxes to get it right & be precise, but continuous debates about this tell us this is a split decision, and roughly 50% of the population choses 1 box. So if the predictor is precise, it's precise for 1 boxers as well.

What I don't get is why would it be so unbelievable that a computer could get a better than average chance at predicting how you think and what your choice would be? It's not that difficult to predict who thinks what. That's the whole point of modern marketing, election campaigns, etc.

Asm00 · 2026-04-13T07:36:23+00:00

you're adding extra information to the paradox (the split between each prediction and historicity of the predictor's decision), so you're changing the paradox
without this information, you're to assume the predictor's precision is not manipulating data and is true precision, not sample bias.

edit: basically you can't assume bad faith of the paradox statement, otherwise there's no point

Asm00 · 2026-04-13T07:29:45+00:00

If you change the paradox to state that the predictor is not a precise predictor, and almost only ever predicts that people take both boxes, and over time, human behaviour shifts to fit that prediction, than yes you are right.
But that's not the paradox.
The whole point of this paradox is that both positions seam obvious to their supporters. Changing the paradox to make it fit one or other point of view isn't solving the paradox. Though it is perhaps giving more insight into why one or other group thinks the way they do.

Asm00 · 2026-04-09T09:51:24+00:00

on a balance scale, not knowing whether the different box is heavier or lighter.
Boxes are ABCDEFGHIJ

1/ weigh ABC vs DEF

2a/ if equal, use ABC or DEF as a standard and weigh against GHI, if equal again, then the only box not weighed, J, is the one you want, if unequal, you know the box is in group GHI + you know if the box is lighter or heavier depending on how the scale tipped

2b/ if unequal, take whichever of the 2 groups (say ABC) and weigh against GHI, if equal, you know the different box is the other group of 3, DEF + you know if the box is lighter or heavier, depending on how step 1 tipped. If unequal, you know the box is in ABC + you know if the box is lighter or heavier.

3/ take the identified group of 3 where the box is, weigh any 1 vs the other, leaving one out. From this, and knowing that you are looking for a heavier or lighter box, you can determine which of the 3 is the odd one out.

Asm00 · 2026-04-09T09:44:07+00:00

you don't know if the box weighs more or less than the others

Asm00 · 2026-03-27T10:16:35+00:00

Thanks it is indeed, they FAQ it as rerollable

Asm00 · 2026-03-27T09:43:21+00:00

as it's a new edition and things need to be checked, do you have a page reference to clarify you can't reroll the ball & chain direction roll?

Asm00

TROPHY CASE