[RobertJohn]

Okay I’m wired so I thought I’d take a shot at revising Baltostar’s prose to make it more palatable for the masses.

I’m taking a break from finishing up a paper too, so this is kind of easy and fun.

[ QUOTE ]
I can't help it if I notice serious flaws in mechanisms of thought that have become de rigeur in the poker community.

[/ QUOTE ]

I’ve noticed glaring mistakes in the thought process of many players.

[ QUOTE ]
The common pattern of ignoring relative stack risk when deciding to play across an event has been bothering me for nearly all of the two years I've been studying poker.

[/ QUOTE ]

Players often ignore the amount of risk involved in their decisions.

Also:

How the hell do you “play across” an event? Why are you deciding to do this?

[ QUOTE ]
And yet players routinely use cost-to-call to calculate implied odds given across event risk, compare the result to implied odds required (typically also mis-calculated), and base their decisions on it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Here you’re being so needlessly verbose that one has to assume it’s intentional. I just can’t figure if it’s for comedy or if you’re just on shrooms.

I think you’re trying to say the following:

You can’t just take the cost of a call and compare it to your stack size to come up with an accurate picture of your real risk/reward.

This is true and has been pointed out many times on 2p2. The fact that players commonly overestimate their true implied odds is nothing new. You should probably drop the whole I'm-on-some-revolutionary-[censored] vibe.

[ QUOTE ]
For those decisions (only) where probability of achieving the most desirous outcome is *primarily* dependent on event risk, I recommend basing implied odds calculations on the total hand risk your stack is incurring. This too is an imperfect tool, but it's better than what most players are doing.

[/ QUOTE ]

Before you use terms like “total hand risk” you should define them! Why? Because no one knows what the hell you’re talking about.

Also, when you say “the total hand risk your stack is incurring” - is it your hand or your stack that’s incurring the risk? WTF?

[ QUOTE ]
If a decision criteria for playing across event risk is to be useful, it should not incur radical swings in validity when successively applied to similar scenarios.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a one-way conversation that everyone here is a part of.

[ QUOTE ]
In my min-re-raises example, a player is offered a sequence of propositions

[/ QUOTE ]

No he’s not.

[ QUOTE ]
each of which is logical to accept according to his criteria for playing across event risk.

[/ QUOTE ]

Awesome.