First post in SMP. Not sure if poker chat is banned here, but just wanted to use a poker situation to highlight a wider question.

Fish in the cut off raises 3x in a sit n go with KT off. BB shoves last 16bbs. Fish can't believe his luck, getting action with such a great hand and snap calls.

Alternative situation. Good reg raises to 3x with the same hand and get shoved on. Reg knows his hand is junk, but also knows that it's a great spot for the bb to shove wide. He decides to call, given the price he is getting and the dynamics of the situation. Regardless of whether you think he made a good call, let's just assume that it is a marginally profitable call, as this isn't about poker.

So two people came to the correct conclusion, one by thinking stupidly, the other by thinking a little more cleverly.

Does this make the stupid decision less stupid, the clever decision less clever, or neither?

Does it effect the value of a correct decision, if the same conclusion can be drawn by thinking poorly?

What if I just made all my decisions by flipping a coin every time, and the coin said to call here? Would that be more stupid than the way a world champion would play?

probably less stupid.

I was going to put in a name, but everyone I could think of would invite that response.

Negreanu could do with that coin, in televised games.

If someone makes a decision using bad logic and happens to get it right by blind luck, that doesn't make the decision smart, imo. For example, If I decide to run across the street without looking both ways first, I might not be hit by a bus, but my decision is still stupid.

pretty much, thread is pointless because this is obvious

It does effect the value of a correct decision. We need a great sample in poker.

Can you explain why?

this is a bad example. your example is of a bad decision that still yields a good result. your example would be for a guy that calls all in with 7-2 and doubles up, and showing that you can make bad decisions, get a good result, but it was still a bad decision. however, op referred to a situation where someone makes the right decision for the wrong reason, which is much different.

your example would fit if you modified it to "if a smart person looks both ways before crossing the street because he is worried about getting hit by a car and another guy looks both ways because he's worried about getting hit by a boat, does that lessen the value of looking both ways"

Let's say that across the street is a better place to be and everybody is aware of that.

I think it's more like one guy just runs across the street because he has never stopped to consider the danger.

Another guy crosses the street because he has found out that no cars ever drive down that street and it is always completely safe. He knows that if cars were to be on that street, there would be a risk. It turns out that the first guy was right to just run across, without looking.

A third guy stays on the pavement and never crosses the road because he has heard that crossing the street is dangerous, but knows no more than that.

Because he has learned a little, but only enough to make the wrong decision, he never gets anywhere.

This is the guy that folds.

no grip, your new example doesn't fit either.

It's pretty much the same as foldndark's except you add in a lot more extraneous information.

Damn.

Now shut it.

obviously not, because the guy looking for boats is going to get run over and die real quick.