Re: Analysis
Mason,
In general this is a collegial forum. We get some obnoxious interlopers, but in general all the top posters on this forum treat each other well.
Every really good poster who has chimed in save one on this forum has disagreed with your position. Ok, so let's talk no limit. We can have a discussion and come to a consensus. If saving face is so important, it is simple to declare restraining conditions that make E[AQs]>E[JJ]. We can then agree to disagree on whether those constraints are relevant to the game you were playing in.
I feel that the need to be right has perverted the discussion here. This is not a book. It is ok for anyone, including you, to be wrong or to make a series of iffy assumptions. Who cares if you change your mind? This is a discussion site, not a bible for playing no limit.
I ask that you treat me and the other posters here with some respect, or at least tone it down. Your last post, while perhaps better dismissed as banter between colleagues, imo crosses the line. You have declared a position, claimed everyone who disagrees does not know how to play no limit, disagreed with every experienced poster who has chimed in save one (who has since recanted I am willing to bet), presented an interesting but irrelevant discussion, and now nitpick on addition on a man who admits to having 12 scotches. It has been four days. Please let the thread die if you have no intention of explaining yourself or refuse to admit that you are wrong. Otherwise, let's have some fun and talk poker!
Much appreciated.
Matt
|