Caleb

Detroit everything.

[Caleb @MontyNeff]

@TwittaUser22 @ReviewsPossum Okay, so you just didn’t read my comment about Supp Note 4 and how it wasn’t the only set of instructions listed in the procedures.

Either you’re ignoring my points, or you’re just arguing in bad faith now. I’ve made my points. I’m going to go enjoy the day now.

[Caleb @MontyNeff]

@TwittaUser22 @ReviewsPossum Can you screenshot and show me where it explicitly was not a factor?

[Caleb @MontyNeff]

@TwittaUser22 @ReviewsPossum Yes, b/c the heat map portion is qualitative and not quantitative. But all throughout study 3a, the researchers bring up this thematic “zero sum” consideration. They explicitly mention later when they remove it (3b). It’s illogical to assume that wasn’t a factor in the heat maps.

[Caleb @MontyNeff]

@TwittaUser22 @ReviewsPossum Look at figure 4 vs figure 5. Avg person looks at figure 4 and has no clue what’s going on.
If the tasks are at all different, which they are, you can always have order effects, even if the parameters behind both tasks are very similar, which logically they should be here.

[Caleb @MontyNeff]

@TwittaUser22 @ReviewsPossum Unless the study methodology is truly laid out terribly (possible), how could they give multiple paragraphs of details for task 1 and then 2 sentences about task 2 within the same exact study and have them NOT contain the same basic overarching instructions?

[Caleb @MontyNeff]

@TwittaUser22 @ReviewsPossum I don’t see how you cannot say they are relative. How could they statistically conclude there were “no order effects” otherwise? The heat maps are just the participants clicking the furthest extent they’d allocate units to zero sum instead of breaking the units down numerically.

[Caleb @MontyNeff]

@TwittaUser22 @ReviewsPossum Supp Note 4 very clearly was not the only piece of instructions given to 3a participants.

The 2nd task is just participants clicking the extent of their circle relative to the instructions given in 3a (qualitative) instead of divvying up specific units (quantitative)

[Caleb @MontyNeff]

@TwittaUser22 @ReviewsPossum Figure 5 is from study 3a. “One caveat to Study 3a is that we constrained the number of units that participants could assign to each group, forcing participants to distribute moral concern in a zero-sum fashion”

Cannot believe I was baited into checking this for the 50th time.

[Caleb @MontyNeff]

@TwittaUser22 @ReviewsPossum The correct interpretation is that they are willing to sacrifice caring resources of those closest to them to benefit distant things, not that they care more about space rocks.

I’ve read it dozens of times. Methodology needs to be explained better. But those are the findings.

[Caleb @MontyNeff]

@TwittaUser22 @ReviewsPossum The people making their ring selections were told it was zero sum, still sacrificed “caring resources” so to speak to further their reach. Every naysayer to the results is projecting their own morality onto their in-group because they don’t like the data.

[Caleb @MontyNeff]

@Steel_City_FB @cve77 @TFG_Football It’s 2026 and people are still buying into padless spring training hype despite decades of evidence that it barely matters

[Caleb @MontyNeff]

@Kacedamenace @anakinsdream He was trying to stunt on Obi by using Obi’s winning move against Maul against him

[Caleb @MontyNeff]

@wazzo11 Interesting how population plays this way. Once IP checks back, if BB has a strong hand, the only real chance to win a big pot from there is to check raise the turn. IP doesn’t protect their check back range nearly enough, so turn probe bluffs perform better than they should.

[Caleb @MontyNeff]

@JakeLeei @_3amr11 He be slouchin

[Caleb @MontyNeff]

@dDeoxyribo @apestyles Ever watch any of the poker out loud YouTube vids? Even thinking players who are trying to win often get hyper fixated on their own hand, much less their own range, and much much less their opponent’s range. I can almost guarantee you were at the very bottom of his thoughts.

[Caleb @MontyNeff]

@curpudgeon @RobKuhn_ The EV of calling vs raising is virtually identical. 9x clubs and 3x clubs are nice turn bluff candidates. Your opponent will continue with worse (unpaired diamonds) and can fold better (weak Kx, TT-QQ). If your opponent plays poorly against turn raises, raising is better.

[Caleb @MontyNeff]

@MattFearLess The amount of players in existence who can replicate the solver across all runouts or even close to it is practically 0. Throw in multiway pots with slight preflop deviations and that number is literally 0.

[Caleb @MontyNeff]

@LionsDraftHQ @the_det_times @NateAtkins_ I would gladly drop 4 spots every single season if it meant we beat Chicago

[Caleb @MontyNeff]

@ttwentyman Did we officially move up before Buffalo selected 1 pick prior? Kilgore was probably the target here and we were forced to select our best player available.

[Caleb @MontyNeff]

@CTankie1917 @tombos21 If your opponent knew you were calling with 12% instead of 10%, then you’d also realize your equity with your entire range better across all lower-middling flops. And your range is still relatively tight, so I’m not sure it would be easy for a human to run you over.