[JammyDodga]

Hey robertjohn, thanks for this.

Baltostar, your idea of

"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."

Doesn't actualy aply in your min-raising battle example.

You assume that our criteria is simply "cost-to-call" so that in your minraising example we would just stack off with a drawing hand. But thats not actually what we are saying.

We say, consider cost to call, if you are closing the action, that's all you need to think about.

If you aren't closing the action, make an educated guess (we are allowed those in poker, and most of us are quite good at them) as to what chance you have of actually seing a flop.

So in your min raisng example, the first time it would come around we'd go, hmm cheap call, I have the odds, chance of guy behind me re-raising is reasonably low, and I have good odds, lets call.

The second time around, we'd go, WTF, these guys are stuck in some kind of min-raising battle, I don't want to be in the middle of it, my immediate cost to call is low, but I'm not closing the action, and my chance of seeing a flop cheaply has just gone way down, I'll fold.

If you don't get it the second time, you'd definitely get it the third and only an absolute moron would stack off using our criteria here.

SO our criteria does work in your min-raising example, as people have already pointed out. As this seems to be the only thing you argument is relying on, you really need to respond to this specifically.