Which is better.... to underestimate or overestimate the opponent?..... pl read on...?

Question

I believe that we always end up either underestimating or overestimating our opponent and hardly ever manage to reckon with reasonable accuracy. So, are we better off if we underestimate or is it more advantageous if we overestimate?

Answer 1

i think, initially it's better to overestimate one's opponent so that you are not unprepared for what he/she/it may throw at you. however, we should constantly evaluate the situation & adjust our stragety accordingly to be more accurate.

Answer 2

Well, nobody wants to get their butt kicked, so in general we should lean toward overestimating.

But overestimating can be almost as destructive as underestimation.

Overestimation can cause you to consider an enemy unbeatable. It's like being bluffed in Poker, you had the better hand, they get the chips.

Also, backing down from a fight with someone who truly hates you is the 'animal' equivalent of saying "Eat me, I'm weak."

This is pretty much what our congress plans to do in Iraq.

Answer 3

I think it's always better to overestimate your opponent rather than underestimate. I remember hearing somewhere that you should always imagine your opponent is three steps ahead of you.

Answer 4

Having an opponent comes from concepts like jealousy, competitiveness and ego. It comes from a belief about "winning".

Let the opponent win. It isn't a good use of my time or energy to be engaging in competitions with others. If the opponent won't accept a win-win situation, walk away. It is then their issue.

Answer 5

While facing an opponent must study his strengths and weaknesses from the previous experience or available data or market reputation and then strategies. should always have plan B ready. it is a chess game. all the players know the moves it is the combination at that moment that makes the difference. your mental strength is of paramount importance. but if your boss becomes your opponent god save you. only strategy that works is buttering or submission.

Answer 6

I think it's obviously better to overestimate your opponent so you won't be taken by surprise.

Answer 7

Overestimating.

At least here, there is a high probability that you'll win.

Answer 8

you always lose when you play silly games, you only win when you be honest and straight, that takes understanding and sometimes compromise, but all things can not be compromised so you should try to do what you can and walk away if you can't make any sense out of it

Answer 9

Always better to be over prepared than under

Answer 10

tolkien said overconfidence is more danger then fear. while underestimating urself can create just as much a hazard. i think that each is just as dangerous as the other.