[baltostar]

[ QUOTE ]
OK, simple model. Very simplified, the EV in a certain hand is a function of a specific play (X) and the "Player Ecosystem" (E)

EV = f(X,E)

I'm saying that any play where EV is positive is a good play. If I change E, which plays are profitable will change. Some plays will become more profitable, some will become less. I'm not denying this. But those plays which now become, or are still marginally porfitable should still be made.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is where we disagree. My argument is that if hero learns to avoid scaling risk on the significantly sub-par cEV+ opportunities (while most other similar players do not learn to do this), hero creates a juicer avg payoff distribution curve for his allin hands (while hero's opponents continue on with their flatter, getting-less-juicier-every-day curves).

Another way to look at this is "going where they ain't" (in a certain sense and to a certain degree).

If hero is able to pass-up the most marginal spots to scale risk while the ecosystem uptrend is that hero's avg similar-style opponent looks to scale risk on every perceived cEV+, hero shifts his risk to a juicier shaped avg payoff distribution curve -- one which hero's skilled opponents are not pursuing.

Hero's skilled opponents are pursuing a flatter curve -- one which worked well to skew the mean to the right for a long time because of all the unchallenged fold equity.

Now that FE is significantly blunted as a weapon (because of the ever-increasing likelihood that in a marginal situation you will get it all in against another skilled agressive player), you need to play for a different curve.

And you will have success in doing so, because, on avg, your style will ensure that you have greater stack utility when you do choose to pursue a scaling line against a similar-style opponent.

What I'm recommending is a tweak to the successful aggressive player's game so that they can continue to be successful.

And I did read all of your post.