undefined | Better HN

0 pointsghaff5y ago0 comments

People bluff but you generally have to be prepared to walk if your bluff is called. If I walk into a manager's office and demand 2x salary or I walk and the response is "we believe you are fairly compensated," you're now in a rather uncomfortable situation.

Which is of course not to say you can't have a more measured negotiation. But it can be hard to walk back from give me X or I do Y, especially if there isn't a lot of middle ground between giving you X or not giving you X.

0 comments

nebulous15y ago

> People bluff but you generally have to be prepared to walk if your bluff is called.

Then you aren't bluffing.

ghaffOP5y ago

Fair enough. And maybe the lesson is don't bluff in situations where you aren't prepared to deal with the consequences if the other party calls your bluff.

tome5y ago

How do you figure that? If I hold 27 off suit then I still have to be prepared to show my hand if you call me. Doesn't mean my all-in raise wasn't bluffing.

ghaffOP5y ago

But presumably you understand that your opponent may call you. The relevant MW definition is "a false threat or claim intended to deter or deceive someone." So in this context, it's a claim you won't really leave if you don't get your way. But the other party may decide to get rid of you anyway based on the bluff. (Thinking about it, it's probably reasonable to call it a bluff but that doesn't mean there aren't consequences if the other party calls you on it.)

1 more reply

nebulous15y ago

Yeah, but your all-in raise is you saying that you have two aces. You're bluffing because you don't actually have the hand you're pretending to have.

dllthomas5y ago

If I find myself in a situation where, if I don't get X, I prefer to leave, then an ultimatum is an obvious course: "give me X or I will leave."

It can be to my benefit in negotiation for the other party to think that I am in such a situation, and so I may still say "give me X or I will leave."

If I do not intend to follow through, I am clearly bluffing.

If I intend to follow through, but absent this gambit I have preferred to stay even in the absence of X, I think we can still call it a bluff in a weaker sense - I am not misleading about my future actions, but I am misleading about the strength of my preferences.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 pointsghaff5y ago0 comments

0 comments

nebulous15y ago

> People bluff but you generally have to be prepared to walk if your bluff is called.

Then you aren't bluffing.

ghaffOP5y ago

Fair enough. And maybe the lesson is don't bluff in situations where you aren't prepared to deal with the consequences if the other party calls your bluff.

tome5y ago

How do you figure that? If I hold 27 off suit then I still have to be prepared to show my hand if you call me. Doesn't mean my all-in raise wasn't bluffing.

ghaffOP5y ago

1 more reply

nebulous15y ago

Yeah, but your all-in raise is you saying that you have two aces. You're bluffing because you don't actually have the hand you're pretending to have.

dllthomas5y ago

If I find myself in a situation where, if I don't get X, I prefer to leave, then an ultimatum is an obvious course: "give me X or I will leave."

It can be to my benefit in negotiation for the other party to think that I am in such a situation, and so I may still say "give me X or I will leave."

If I do not intend to follow through, I am clearly bluffing.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse