Re: A5s in blind battle.
[ QUOTE ]
When did I say I thought is was deep and revolutionary.
[/ QUOTE ]
Well, it is very clear from the way you phrase your posts and ideas. You also specifically admit, at the very next sentence you write, at noticing "thought patterns on these boards that are detrimental to good players' games". In other words, you have a "deeper" understanding of this game than some long term winners who are posting here.
[ QUOTE ]
In fact, when I used to write for trading sites, people gave me a lot of credit for explaining risk ideas in a straightforward manner.
[/ QUOTE ]
"Risk ideas" with regard to MTTs were discussed on these boards and elsewhere for ages. Your way of "explaining" it is rather poor actually, and again, there's nothing new about it.
[ QUOTE ]
Would you rather read what I write or what Chen writes in The Mathematics of Poker ?
[/ QUOTE ]
This is really a laughable comparison. First, I have never got annoyed reading Chen's book (regardless if I understood some stuff in it or not). Your posts are annoying as hell. Second, and much more importantly, Chen actually suggests a rather interesting (some of it new) perspective on the analysis of poker hands. Your posts are much more like a teenager who is trying to impress his friends by talking about football using words he heard the day before in a TV show about "quantum mechanics" (on the discovery channel).
|