I have already written a discussion thread... I am too lazy to re-write the film review, so I copied it directly. Let's talk about the reasoning loopholes in the movie poker game, everyone is welcome to discuss.
First of all, I like the movie, I really like it. I don't want to comment too much on how high a movie is worth, just like it. I just wanted to talk about the logic loopholes in the poker game, because I feel that the loopholes are quite obvious, but no one has mentioned it, and I saw a bunch of people who were arguing in the comment area and didn't talk about it at all.
There were loopholes in two poker games. The first was Li Yifeng's four-card scissors against Fat Beard, and the second was against the trio of cloth hoarders. The two loopholes are that the opponent's thinking of playing cards is particularly unreal, and people with a little brain will never play cards like this.
First of all, admit the law of equilibrium, because it is safest to play this way according to normal people's thinking, and the movie really cannot be made without this law. But please note that the law of equilibrium is based on random luck without knowing what the opponent's cards are. The purpose is to retain strength, but if you can infer what cards the opponent will play, you will never play cards according to the law of equilibrium.
Next, let’s talk about the first point, against the beard. Just talking about the last three rounds of competition, Li Yifeng wanted to trick Beard into thinking that he had one of each of the three cards. The reasoning that the scissors lost to the Rock Beard in the first round was that Li Yifeng had one stone and one cloth left, and only two cloths could guarantee a draw and a draw. win. But the scissors won the cloth in the second round. At this time, the bearded man could realize that his previous reasoning was wrong. Li Yifeng did not leave one stone and one cloth, and he had already produced three scissors in a row. But Beard did not realize that his reasoning was wrong and insisted on publishing. This logic is wrong, because after the second round his reasoning has been overturned, why insist on it?
The correct way to play is: realize that the opponent did not play cards according to the law of equilibrium and play three scissors in a row, and the last one is also scissors. At least the cards should be played according to the original law of logical equilibrium. According to the law of equilibrium, there is no way to play cards.
Talking about the second point of the hoarding trio, the boss of the trio thinks that Li Yifeng's stones are more likely to produce stones, so he will win the game... This logic is too superficial, and it can be thought that the trio who also hoard cards should be the same as Li Yifeng. Do empathy and think "I can think of this, why Li Yifeng can't think of it, Li Yifeng can think that the three-man group will definitely produce cloth, then Li Yifeng can win the cloth if he uses scissors." With an extremely simple and superficial logic, everyone should be able to prevent each other.
Correct way to play: The purpose of the trio is to beat odd cards and it is not necessary to win or lose. With the mentality of not wanting to lose, it can be said that a tie will qualify; Li Yifeng’s goal is to win, and a tie is meaningless. First of all, the law of equilibrium is invalid in this game, and the stones hoarded by Li Yifeng can't win the cloth hoarded by the trio; secondly, the trio can push out Li Yifeng and it is impossible to produce cloth, because from Li Yifeng's point of view, there are already few cloths, and the trio is very It is very likely that there is also a release, and it is meaningless to draw a tie. Therefore, it is impossible for Li Yifeng to give out cloth. The reasoning of the trio should be that Li Yifeng chooses to play the cards and choose only the rocks that he has no brains to hoard, or he wants to bet on a pair of scissors that can win the cloth. At this time, the trio only needs to throw stones to ensure that they are invincible, and the victory is better and the draw has also achieved their goal. (Of course, if there are gangsters who say that Li Yifeng can think backwards on this basis, there will be no end. I just say that the logical reasoning given in the movie is too superficial)
The above two personal opinions, I reiterate that although there are loopholes, it does not affect the wonderfulness of the movie. Everyone is welcome to discuss logic, talk about plot bugs, why no one cares about hitting fat people, how to steal diamonds, why don't you notice this kind of trouble, bypass the bar, or analyze a wave of bugs why Li Yifeng didn't call the police directly
View more about Animal World reviews
