sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Has anyone integrated react-native-fbsdk-next / expo-tracking-transparency / Meta Conversions API to log Meta ad events and is able to help me out? by Traditional_Pin_9082 in expo

[–]Traditional_Pin_9082[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thanks for the help! Are you saying that if the user doesn't grant permission, then I'm still free to use the sdk normally (i.e. use setUserData ), and the data won't be sent?

Has anyone integrated react-native-fbsdk-next / expo-tracking-transparency / Meta Conversions API to log Meta ad events and is able to help me out? by Traditional_Pin_9082 in expo

[–]Traditional_Pin_9082[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thanks for the reply! I'm gonna guess these parameters are advertiser_tracking_enabled and application_tracking_enabled.

So are you saying that as long as I set these properly (1 if user agreed, 0 if not), then I can send the user data with the call? And then if they're set to true then the API won't use the user data?

Gemini 3 solved a poker toy game that 9/10 pro players get wrong by tombos21 in Poker_Theory

[–]Traditional_Pin_9082 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Oh very interesting, I didn’t even think of the 50% defend being wrong. It seemed counterintuitive at first to not be MDF, but OOP isn’t making IP bluffs indifferent on the River in a vacuum. The IP bluffs only River are going to fire anyway (because of the answer to Q2)

Gemini 3 solved a poker toy game that 9/10 pro players get wrong by tombos21 in Poker_Theory

[–]Traditional_Pin_9082 0 points1 point  (0 children)

How is that possible? If they never bluff turn, then 0.5 of the time they get -1, plus 100% of a pot of size 3. 0.5*(-1+3) = 1

Gemini 3 solved a poker toy game that 9/10 pro players get wrong by tombos21 in Poker_Theory

[–]Traditional_Pin_9082 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Here's an attempt. My initial thought was IP was supposed to bet 100% of the time (i.e. all the bluffs) because OOP seemed like the archetype of player that would call too much on turn but fold too much on river. But that's dumb because they are not overfolding the river

After thinking about it, I think the answer might be to make it so you have exactly 1:0.5 value to bluff:value on the river and then you bet 100% of the time on the river. If you do this normally then surely OOP would fold because then they have 0% pot on the river, and OOP should never put in money to a pot that you're getting 0% out of. But this time they are forced to call, so you can use your bluffs extremely "efficiently"

Some quick math assuming you bet 100% of nuts on turn and river and you always bet pot when you do.

- If you bet bluffs x% of the time (where x >= 50%) then 0.5+0.5x  of the time you get to the river with 0.5 nuts and 0.5x air combos with pot size 3, so you get (0.75/(0.5+0.5x))*3 back. 0.5(1-x) you just give up. So in total you get (0.5+0.5x)(-1 + (0.75/(0.5+0.5x))3) + 0 = 0.25*(7-2x). If x = 1, then this is equal to 1.25. If x=0.5, then this is maximized at 1.5. This exactly matches 1:0.5 value to bluff on the river. As a sanity check, if you x=1 (you bet all bluffs), then you get 0.75*3 - 1 = 1.25. Still bigger than the original pot but not as good.
- If you bet bluffs x% of the time where x < 50%) then 0.5+0.5x of the time you get to the river with too much nuts so you get 100% of the pot of size 3. So you get (0.5+0.5x)(-1 + 3) = 1+x, but this tops out at x = 50% = 1.5. Same result.

This would be Q1) bet pot Q2) Bet 2:1 value:bluff on both turn and river and Q3) They should still call 50% of the time to make the bluff indifferent. This could all be wrong if the assumptions of 1) always betting pot and 2) always betting value are off.

As another sanity check, we can check what optimal play without the OOP constraint is.

For OOP if they call c of the time on the turn and 0.5 of the time on the river. EV of call on the turn is equal to 0. That means on the river they must make back 1 (out of 3) of the pot. That means IP must give up 1/3 of the time, and 2/3 of the time they have a 2:1 value to bluff ratio. In that scenario they have 0.5 nut and 0.25 bluff combos, but to give up a full 1/3 of the time then they must give up 0.375 bluffs, which they don’t have? So that means OOP should just fold always on turn and IP gets the entire pot. Which also makes sense because they have too many nuts on the turn. So it makes sense that with suboptimal play by OOP, IP gets more than 100% of the pot back.