[binions]

[ QUOTE ]
In contrast to tighty, I was struck by the number of situations cited in which the book recommended abandoning the plan. Not because I think flexibility is unimportant, but I just wonder whether you can really refer to a commitment threshold and in the same breath talk about backing away from committing.

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course you can. Every new bit of information, from the reaction of the foe to your bet on the flop to how many draws the turn card completes, can change a commitment plan. That doesn't make the act of planning meaningless.

[ QUOTE ]
I am also amused that in this thread the authors are critical of short stackers when their theory is designed to accomplish the same goal, i.e. shift the balance to pre-flop and flop decisions.

[/ QUOTE ]

Flynn seems to be more critical of shortstacking than Mehta who seems neutral about it, while Miller has written extensively about its virtues. So, your generalization of "the authors" does not work. Moreover, I don't think any of them have much of a problem with medium-stacking (buying in for 60xBB or so).

Further, your statement seems to only comprehend the strategy of trying to play top pair hands at your target SPR. You overlook the authors' advice about playing stealing hands in position at SPRs of 13 against top pair hands. Or the authors advice of playing drawing hands for value at SPRs of 20 or more, etc.