When Are They Lying?

[DirtyHarry]

All,

I suspect that a good deal of figuring out if someone is lying to you in their messaging has to do with intuition, but I'd like to hear if any of you use certain criteria in addition to simply relying on your instincts. For instance, in a recent game as Austria, I made a proposal that Germany and I attack Russia and try for a 17/17 split. This would have meant Germany stabbing Russia, as they were allies at this point.

This was the response I got:

I'm still quite tentative; not fully changed my mind yet. It's just that if we are not going for Russia then you might come for me...
So nervous and all - Let's do it!!

The response "felt" fishy, and I didn't believe that Germany was going to follow through on the proposal, even though he ended the message with "Let's do it!!". But I didn't know exactly why I didn't believe him (and I was right in this case), until I started reading articles like this:

https://www.news.com.au/technology/onli ... a0d0180812

So, I'm wondering what others of you look for in messages that give you clues as to whether not someone is lying to you. I'm actually in the process of writing some code that might help me detect some of these things, but I suspect if it works at all it will just wind up being a "tie-breaker" if I'm not sure about someone's messaging.

Anyway, I'd love to hear your stories and see your examples!

[adebruyn666]

Hi,

You might be interested in this story here, although the research in itself is pretty poor (it's explained in the article):

https://www.wired.com/story/online-lie- ... -learning/

I've investigated lie detection and tells mostly in the context of face-to-face poker, and there are fascinating things to study. Mike Caro's book on poker tells is a classic, and it's worth reading even if you don't play poker. There are a few others, but not as good.

One of the main difficulties one faces is that most of the "tells" tend to be measured in terms of departure from a baseline. If a friend repeats himself ten times per sentence and always speaks in absolute terms, it doesn't mean anything. It's just his style. If someone *starts* doing it in an important message, that might tell a whole different story. But in Diplomacy, you rarely have that kind of baseline. So I'm not sure you'll be very successful.

Better assume these sons of bitches lie all the time. And remember, it's not because you're paranoid that they're not out there to get you.

[V]

In the case of a politician it’s easily determined because their lips are moving

[DirtyHarry]

Very true, V. But I'm not sure that comment really helps me too much with my project

@adebruyn666 - I actually read Caro's book a long time ago when I used to play more poker, but that doesn't help too much when reading press

And the point about a baseline strikes me as quite accurate, as I've noticed that it's when the correspondence suddenly changes that my suspicions become aroused.

Also, the article you linked is interesting ... it gives me some things to research for additional inputs into the program.

@all - I'd love to see examples of messages that were "big lies" and whether or not you knew the person was lying, and how you knew, or if you got fooled.

[Chrome]

As an example, Scott Seiver was shown at the final table of one of my favorite events, The Big One for One Drop 2014, against Tobias Reinkemeier, Seiver was trying to convince Reinkemeyer that his hand was clearly AQ or KQ. It doesn't matter to him what Tobias is holding, it does matter to him that he himself does not have a ready hand. But this little clarification gives the impression that Scott knows perfectly well what he is doing - he put his opponent on a range and considers himself stronger. It depicts two pairs or a set. After Reinkemeyer confessed that he had aces, Siver expressed surprise, but not fear. Here is his replica "With a cross?" just there is that seemingly insignificant trifle that I mentioned above. He once again showed that he does not care whether the opponent has top pair or overpair, he is worried only about the flush draw. And he blurted it out almost without thinking. He stubbornly continued to portray two pair / set. For Reinkemeyer, Siver's range was polarized - either he had what he presented or a bluff. He had to make a very difficult decision in a way ahead / way behind situation. And all this in the face of a damn expensive final table.
As a result, he did not dare to put everything on bluff-catching and gave up. It is difficult to argue about the correctness of Reinkemeyer's decision, knowing the cards of both players. It seems to me that he tried to estimate the percentage of bluffs and strongest hands of Siver, and nevertheless came to the conclusion that he did not have enough pot odds. Although on the other hand, slowplaying pocket aces against a short stack, he had to be ready to flop in any situation postflop. One thing is clear, at some point Scott Seiver realized that he could not squeeze out his opponent by building his standard stone poker face. He decided to use the art of verbal lies, and he did it perfectly