[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Mason,
Please explain your original clain that E[AQs] > E[JJ].
Matt
[/ QUOTE ]
I was just going to ask the same thing. You claimed to make a statement and said other players in the game were bad because they believed the opposite. What is your position and how are you backing it?
[/ QUOTE ]
Yes, please do this, Mason. If I were you, I would either:
(1) Call - demonstrate E[AQs] > E[JJ] in some reasonable fashion or
(2) Fold - admitting you are wrong and cutting your losses.
I'm not saying either of these actions is necessarily right for you.
To me it seems you are reraising with air - refusing to admit you're wrong and getting around demonstrating E[AQs] > E[JJ] by refusing to entertain arguments around it. It's very nice to see that you're responding to so many people, but I for one cannot see where you have addressed this point.
If you are attempting a proof by verbosity (
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_by_verbosity), I don't accept it as valid. If you're not, please set me straight.
In my opinion, your reasoning as to E[AQs] > 0 may or may not be valid, but by itself does not show that E[AQs] > E[JJ].
In fact, as others have pointed out, since your reasoning shows E[AQs] < half-of-money-in-pot, I draw the conclusion that E[AQs] < E[JJ].
Thank you.
[/ QUOTE ]
While we're all giving out our qualifications, I have a Bachelor's and honorary Master's in Physics from Oxford University. I am also a winning 10/25 NL player and a break-even 25/50 NL and 50/100 NL player.
So Mason, I'll ask again, please demonstrate that E[AQs] > E[JJ].
[/ QUOTE ]
I have a BA in English, an MFA in Communications Arts, and I used to direct porn. The biggest math problem I can confidently solve is the name of this web site.
And yet I still think JJ>AQ in this situation.