> In the "suspicious coin" example, there is an opening assumption I understood it differently: there are no assumptions per se, just a request to make an assu

> In the "suspicious coin" example, there is an opening assumption I understood it differently: there are no assumptions per se, just a request to make an assumption. The request is made by a third party and all this is part of the thought experiment. > It isn't a fallacy to continue to treat this as a game True. The article states that “The ludic fallacy here is to assume that in real life the rules from the purely hypothetical model (where Dr. John is correct) apply.”. > treat it as a game where you are unsure about whether the coin is fair This significantly modifies the scope of the original game. I understood this as an example of how simplified models might easily stop being useful because of real life conditions.