When Are They Lying?

What are your winning tactics? Kill them all? Discuss strategy for the classic and variant games using the classic map, or visit the sub-forums for the variant maps.
Forum rules
Strategy
In addition to the general Forum Guidelines (see here: http://www.playdiplomacy.com/forum/view ... 30&t=15441), there are additional rules for posting in this forum.
1. When discussing strategy, reference should not be made to any active game. This section of the Forum is for general strategy discussion, not specific situations within games.
2. It follows that links, images, game name and/or number should not be added to a post if the game is active.
Posts which refer to a specific situation in an active game, or which link directly to an active game, are subject to editing or removal.

When Are They Lying?

Postby DirtyHarry » 08 Jun 2020, 01:41

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!
DirtyHarry
Premium Member
 
Posts: 168
Joined: 07 Feb 2017, 22:03
Location: Maryland, USA
Class: Star Ambassador
Standard rating: 1356
All-game rating: 1427
Timezone: GMT-5

Re: When Are They Lying?

Postby adebruyn666 » 08 Jun 2020, 09:13

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. :D
"Age wrinkles the body. Quitting wrinkles the soul." --- General Douglas MacArthur.
"Diplomacy: destroying friendship since 1959." --- My favorite t-shirt

Star Ambassador, Platinum Classicist, and a f*ing son of a bitch (according to ungrateful friends I introduced to the game)
User avatar
adebruyn666
 
Posts: 63
Joined: 12 Aug 2012, 21:29
Class: Star Ambassador
Standard rating: (1402)
All-game rating: (1809)
Timezone: GMT+1

Re: When Are They Lying?

Postby V » 08 Jun 2020, 12:46

In the case of a politician it’s easily determined because their lips are moving :D
Platinum Classicist
Voilà! In view, a humble vaudevillian veteran cast vicariously as both victim and villain by the vicissitudes of Fate. This visage, no mere veneer of vanity, is a vestige of the vox populi, now vacant, vanished.
User avatar
V
 
Posts: 839
Joined: 04 May 2014, 21:28
Class: Star Ambassador
Standard rating: (1769)
All-game rating: (1827)
Timezone: GMT-7

Re: When Are They Lying?

Postby DirtyHarry » 10 Jun 2020, 03:29

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 :D

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.
DirtyHarry
Premium Member
 
Posts: 168
Joined: 07 Feb 2017, 22:03
Location: Maryland, USA
Class: Star Ambassador
Standard rating: 1356
All-game rating: 1427
Timezone: GMT-5

Re: When Are They Lying?

Postby Chrome » 30 Sep 2020, 18:38

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 ;)
Oh, will we ever be set free?
User avatar
Chrome
 
Posts: 19
Joined: 09 Sep 2020, 13:40
Location: Manchester


Return to Diplomacy Strategy

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests