poker, Bush, and politics--Mason should read this

In his book "Gambling Theory and Other Topics", Mason has a chapter called "Gambling Fantasy", in which he compares poker to historical situations. In one section, entitled "The World's Greatest Semi-Bluff", he writes about General Lee's great semi-bluff during the Civil War.


In light of the US-Iraq situation, many people are wondering why Bush is talking so much about engaging Iraq in war. He has done it for months, he has done it openly, and even war plans have leaked out (I haven't even heard Bush complaining about the leaks).


I think he may be semi-bluffing. He is hoping Saddam will "fold" by allowing weapon inspectors in, or to change his policy somehow. If he doesn't, he still has a chance later by actually going to war. Moreover, he is gaining information about the attitude of the allies regarding possible war in the process.


Thoughts?


(Or is Bush just detracting everyone from our poor economy? :-)

Bush, my least favorite president. I think you might be onto something. I think the real reason he has been hesitant is that ther will be a huge spike in the price of oil which could derail the economy.

I don't know how to tell a semi-bluff from a regular old bet, but I assume that some value comes from the chance that the other guy will fold. If the other guy won't fold, bluffing is not smart. Bad bluff by W.


Tommy

maybe its a reverse semi-bluff. wants iraq to think we're bluffing, then we go to war, and hit em hard. and quick. wartime spurts economic growth, too, you know... might not be a bad move. though i don't like war and killing.

I don't think it's a bluff. I suspect it's more of a slow-play. W has what he thinks is a winning hand, and he's using some misdirection to lull Saddam into a false sense of security. Saddam figures "He won't act while they're still discussing what to do." Psychological gamesmanship. Saddam fancies himself a good reader, and thinks "Strong means weak." It doesn't. 'Course, Saddam could just go all-in by doing something stupid like using his NBC capability, and then W would have to take a big risk with a call... to the 2nd Armored Division.

then the one hundred billion bill that we pay and the hawks make the profits for big killing machines.

Hi Acer:


You may be right, but I don't see it this way.


I believe that Bush has a real dilemma. If they go to war and fight it as they have done the last three wars, we'll see 4 to 6 weeks of air attacks while Iraq's defenses are slowly and completely destroyed. Then in come the troops and we win with virtually no casulties.


The problem with this is that Iraq should be able to shoot off a missle or two, and that means a weapon of mass destruction might land on Tel Aviv. Something we don't want.


So that means we should hit them with everything we have all at once. Since their defenses won't yet be totally destroyed, we might lose let's say 50,000 troops.


But suppose this happens and it turns out that they didn't have a weapon of mass destruction. Then we just killed 50,000 Americans and it wasn't necessary.


So I believe that what we are seeing is an effort to gain information from Iraq or other sources that might know. Specifically, do they have a weapon of mass destruction? If we can figure this out for sure, it determines our battle plan and just might save many US (and Iraqi) lives.


Best wishes,

Mason

"wartime spurts economic growth, too, you know"


This is a myth, see current war in Afganistan and current recession.

Acehigh. A "real" war will skyrocket many segments of our economy and marginally harm others. As for the current state of our economy you must be buying into the Liberal rhetoric blowing out of Washington D.C. The current recession began during the antwar Clinton administration. A good skirmish or two will do our economy a great deal of good. It doesn't work like this: We go to war and the next day the DJI average shoots up a thousand points.


Jimbo

Let's sit back and let Soddie give a nuke to the bad guys to use on NYC or LA or Chicago. Think of all the economic growth to come from rebuilding!


BR

Remember what you were to taught in Sunday school Ron. It is always better to give than receive.


Jimbo


ps: Hey, why no suggestion to nuke baltimore huh? /images/smile.gif

Saddam is no threat to Israel. If he attacks Israel, he knows with absolutely certainty that the Israelis will nuke him into the Sands of Oblivion. Saddam's real threat is that he will use weapons of mass destruction to cripple or destroy the oil production facilities of the Gulf States and Saudi Arabia. The price of oil would soar, and he is sitting on atleast 100 billion barrels of prime crude. If he kills all of the people in Kuwait, then there is nothing to go to war over. He might use biological or dirty nuclear weapopns to render the oil facilities uninhabital and unrepairable for quite some time in the future.


I give the President the benefit of doubt. He and his advisors probably know at lot of thing we don't. Or he is being suckered by the British who would really like to get their hands back on _their oil_. Back in the late 40's and early 50's the British convinced the US the commies might come to power in Iran, nationalize the oil industry(i.e., BP's oil), and provide the Russians with a warm water port. Thus the US got involved in schemes to overthrow the newly elected government, assinate the president, and install the Shah in power. And now we are paying for all of this meddling.

"A "real" war will skyrocket many segments of our economy and marginally harm others"


This is completely false. Look at the economy now. Why isn't it the economy being helped by this small war? Because prolonged wars never help the economy. The government is running huge deficits and it isn't helping the ecomony.

i hate when people talk about the economy like they have a clue.


there is no way that anything happening right now is going to effect the 'economy' of the country for years to come. or better stated:


there is no way for the effects of most economic stimulus to be observed completely before at least 8 years is up.


some things could. not war. certainly not 99% of the decisions that our government makes.


the state of this economy is just beginning to reflect the leadership of B.Clinton (and a million other things that happened a long time ago).

"i hate when people talk about the economy like they have a clue. "


Sorry, I wasn't aware you were the sole person with any idea how the economy works.


"there is no way that anything happening right now is going to effect the 'economy' of the country for years to come"


You don't think the Stock Market has an effect on the current economy? Not Enron, Authur Anderson, WorldCom or the SEC? You don't think ending the war in Afganistan would have an effect on the economy?


Must be easy being an expert on the economy when nothing that happens effects it.

of course all of those things have an effect on the economy. but not an immediate effect. we will not fully realize the repercussions of our economic sins until they are behind us.


i don't claim to be the only one who knows anything about the economy. but when people speak out of their asses like they actually know something, i roll my eyes.


the stock market is a reflection of the economy, not its sole stimulus. it too plays a part, but the whole picture takes a lot more than just the stock market to have a drastic enough change on the economy.


i didn't say those things wouldn't have an effect on the economy. you should learn how to read.

"but when people speak out of their asses like they actually know something, i roll my eyes."


You haven't said anything to show you know anything about the economy.


"the stock market is a reflection of the economy, not its sole stimulus. it too plays a part, "


That's all I said, stock market issues affect the economy. Especially when people are losing a signifigant amount of there net worth.


"i didn't say those things wouldn't have an effect on the economy"


Make up your mind.

my mind was made up. everything i said was coherent and consistent.


i don't have to justify to anybody what i know about the economy. im not trying to.