[baltostar]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The 3rd order problem is purusing lines in marginal cEV+ scenarios that *tend* to scale stakes until the risk is inappropriate for the relative opportunity during your M-bracket, committing your stack to opps that are significantly sub-par.

[/ QUOTE ]

"Committing my stack to opponents that are significantly sub-par"? are you nuts? Do you perceive "committing my stack to opponents that are significantly sub-par" as a bad thing? I don't believe I actually read this. Baltostar, here are some news to you: that's usually how good players double up! by commiting their stack to opponents that are sub-par in certain way or other! Usually your +CEV spots, certainly in early-mid stages, will be vs. those players. Not willing to "commit" when you find those spots is absurd.

[/ QUOTE ]

opps = opportunities. The paragraph says "opportunity" 8 words prior and so the 2nd time I use it I abbreviate it.

I've already said numerous times that I am advocating using avg opp for M-bracket as a warning system to help one avoid becoming drawn into pursuing lines in marginal cEV+ scenarios that tend to scale risk inappropriately.

Obviously, if you get in a spot against a known bad player that might give you good reason to ignore the warning.

Your attempts to stylize me as a nit are so pathetic I can't believe anyone else on this thread will fall for them.

I've been playing an aggressive style for almost a year now (after studying the game for almost a year) and my advices are based on the large and rapidly growing number of aggressive players in the game.

In all forms of gambling, everything changes. There may be long-term cycles, but in the medium-term everything changes.

Haphazardly pursuing marginal cEV+ without thought to the impact of variance in a relative context is a relatively easy tactic to learn. And thousands of young players are learning it.

The success of a strategy of scaling stakes at every perceived marginal cEV+ opportunity depends on a large component of FE. As more and more similar players enter the game, the value of this FE component diminishes. More and more often, you are up against another player who is just as willing to scale.

To beat tomorrow's over-populated aggressive game your game must change today, and my advice is to do this by tending to avoid scaling the significantly sub-par opportunities. In this manner, in the long run, your tournament $EV will be better than non-evolved aggressive players (all else equal).

They, as a group, may win more tournaments, but over the long-term you will have better bankroll growth than their avg.