Good video, thanks for the high-level content! I think "no dora seen" is still good to keep in mind especially if you're playing against opponents with open hands, and the dora tile fits in tanyao. Often an opponent rushing tanyao (at least in higher lobbies) can indicate that they already have dora 2 or dora 3 hidden, so playing more cautiously in these situations because of "no dora seen" I think is still good. For "calling riichi to make opponents fold", it's also good to keep in mind what the round and score situation is. In All Last, if you're 2nd place and call riichi, the 1st place player is very likely to fold, but the 4th place player will probably push no matter what. Also, I think this can work if you're dealer, because pushing against dealer riichi is much more risky and I think there it's fine to riichi even a bad wait to scare players off, especially if it's an early riichi. For example taking an early shanpon riichi instead of waiting in dama to draw pinfu instead. Or am I wrong? :D
Score distribution reasoning will always apply on a case by case basis. For the case you provided, it depends how close 4th place is to you. If is too close to you, it will increase your chance of getting last which is bad for mjs/tenhou. 1st place will also only fold if he has no chance of dropping to 3rd and below fighting you. Ultimately there's less reason for 1st to simply be passive and leave 2nd alone to overtake 1st. So for score distribution, it's more of another reasoning. More like, you dama because you dont want 1st / 2nd place to fold so that you can get a direct hit on them. A riichi is simply trying to chase 1st by increasing value rather than getting 1st to fold. This video wish to re-emphasise that we should seek justification with information of high certainty and not with absence of information.
@@MrFeng Ok I see, so you're more trying to emphasize that players should, in general, always use the right kind of reasoning for every decision, and not make decisions based on pure beliefs. So even if you could argue "early dealer riichi is good because opponents are likelier to fold", this is of less importance. Priority of the reasoning should be more like "it's necessary to riichi this to get value because we need it / we don't have a yaku otherwise and the wait is unlikely to improve". So for example, on East 1 it's better to keep 11600 dama if you have a yaku for better win rate (we don't need more value), rather than to blindly believe that calling riichi will boost win rate because everyone will fold. I definitely agree with this notion, thanks for the reply :)
Dora dragon is such a pain to have. It's both dangerous to discard and (usually) inefficient to keep. Even with pair of them, it's valuable, but the chance to actually win the hand is not that high. Triplet though is a completely different story. Safe to discard, easier to win, very valuable.
@@MrFeng - Sorry for being curt! I did not expect you to read and respond to the comments. Really like your videos and lectures in general - thank you for making them! It's just that, someone who has studied logic, most call-outs of fallacies are only appropriate when an argument is made about what * must * follow. When someone is just reasoning about whether something is more or less likely, then many of the forms that would otherwise be called fallacious are actually valid. And well, Mahjong is essentially all probabilistic heuristics. So good or bad reasoning must be derived from statistics or similar probabilistic reasoning rather than whether something is or is not a 'fallacy'. It is also amusing as without that consideration, many of the examples of 'good reasoning' in this video would also be fallacies if one interpreted them as strict claims.
@@osuf3581 I'm not academically inclined with fallacy. The overall message of this video is talking about reasoning that's not based on probability. If players are using probabilities reasoning expressed in numbers, then there's little room for any fallacy. This video is inspired from seeing how these reasoning have been frequently used poorly to justify bad plays. So if you get the whole essence of it, then I'm not worried even if you disagree. 🙂
Very good video! Straight to the point, good content and useful information :)
Good video, thanks for the high-level content! I think "no dora seen" is still good to keep in mind especially if you're playing against opponents with open hands, and the dora tile fits in tanyao. Often an opponent rushing tanyao (at least in higher lobbies) can indicate that they already have dora 2 or dora 3 hidden, so playing more cautiously in these situations because of "no dora seen" I think is still good.
For "calling riichi to make opponents fold", it's also good to keep in mind what the round and score situation is. In All Last, if you're 2nd place and call riichi, the 1st place player is very likely to fold, but the 4th place player will probably push no matter what. Also, I think this can work if you're dealer, because pushing against dealer riichi is much more risky and I think there it's fine to riichi even a bad wait to scare players off, especially if it's an early riichi. For example taking an early shanpon riichi instead of waiting in dama to draw pinfu instead. Or am I wrong? :D
Score distribution reasoning will always apply on a case by case basis.
For the case you provided, it depends how close 4th place is to you. If is too close to you, it will increase your chance of getting last which is bad for mjs/tenhou. 1st place will also only fold if he has no chance of dropping to 3rd and below fighting you. Ultimately there's less reason for 1st to simply be passive and leave 2nd alone to overtake 1st.
So for score distribution, it's more of another reasoning. More like, you dama because you dont want 1st / 2nd place to fold so that you can get a direct hit on them. A riichi is simply trying to chase 1st by increasing value rather than getting 1st to fold.
This video wish to re-emphasise that we should seek justification with information of high certainty and not with absence of information.
@@MrFeng Ok I see, so you're more trying to emphasize that players should, in general, always use the right kind of reasoning for every decision, and not make decisions based on pure beliefs.
So even if you could argue "early dealer riichi is good because opponents are likelier to fold", this is of less importance. Priority of the reasoning should be more like "it's necessary to riichi this to get value because we need it / we don't have a yaku otherwise and the wait is unlikely to improve".
So for example, on East 1 it's better to keep 11600 dama if you have a yaku for better win rate (we don't need more value), rather than to blindly believe that calling riichi will boost win rate because everyone will fold.
I definitely agree with this notion, thanks for the reply :)
Dora dragon is such a pain to have. It's both dangerous to discard and (usually) inefficient to keep. Even with pair of them, it's valuable, but the chance to actually win the hand is not that high. Triplet though is a completely different story. Safe to discard, easier to win, very valuable.
I think dora visibility is less important than early discards of dora adjacent tiles
The reasoning of this videos is really bad, which is rather ironic. You do not use formal fallacies for probabilistic considerations.
Happy to know you are using probabilistic consideration in your gameplay 🙂
@@MrFeng - Sorry for being curt! I did not expect you to read and respond to the comments. Really like your videos and lectures in general - thank you for making them!
It's just that, someone who has studied logic, most call-outs of fallacies are only appropriate when an argument is made about what * must * follow. When someone is just reasoning about whether something is more or less likely, then many of the forms that would otherwise be called fallacious are actually valid. And well, Mahjong is essentially all probabilistic heuristics. So good or bad reasoning must be derived from statistics or similar probabilistic reasoning rather than whether something is or is not a 'fallacy'.
It is also amusing as without that consideration, many of the examples of 'good reasoning' in this video would also be fallacies if one interpreted them as strict claims.
@@osuf3581 I'm not academically inclined with fallacy. The overall message of this video is talking about reasoning that's not based on probability. If players are using probabilities reasoning expressed in numbers, then there's little room for any fallacy.
This video is inspired from seeing how these reasoning have been frequently used poorly to justify bad plays.
So if you get the whole essence of it, then I'm not worried even if you disagree. 🙂