The argument between you and I is that you speak only in generalities and have never been able to offer any piece of useful information or demonstration. Just a lot of hand-waving about you theories of "levels"

You are very good at discrediting what I say with sly insults rusty. That's exactly what a Cog D sufferer would do.

Useless you say, that is not true. I have answered all the questions that come my way. It's just useless to you because you haven't been able to grasp it.

All theory is a generality lol, and I am teaching Poker theory. However, we both know that I use examples because you already used that one on me before. You need to find a new way to discredit my theories brother, just to keep me on my toes if nothing else.

lol demonstration. What exactly do you want me to put in these theory threads rusty? What do you think I can say to stop your insults and end this argument

You seem to be struggling old boy...

It's almost entirely subconscious you know. Cognitive dissonance. You guys aren't the real enemy here.

No. If you reread the entire paragraph you partially quoted, you'll see why.

so he valuebets only pure value hands and you say that calling with qj is not a big mistake? I think if you call such a guy with q high you compensate some part of his "misses lots of value"
And if he checks why you "win the pot more often"? His checking range will still have weaker value hands.

That's all true, but you seem to ignore the profitable bluffing opportunities that this opponent is missing vs the parts of your range that can't call. The ev gain isn't necessarily gained by this particular hand, but instead the strategy gains as a whole. If the strategy as a whole does not gain when the opponent changes his or her strategy, then the opponent has inched closer to gto poker and has in fact gained value.

I like to call this concept "The Law of Conservation of Expected Value." I've actually tried to put this idea down on paper and or in post form here on 2+2 but it always gets way too long didn't read style in a hurry.

In short form:

The Law of Conservation of Expected Value states that under the conditions of a Nash Equilibrium, a player cannot increase his or her expectation by changing his or her strategy and that any deviation from this equilibrium will result in a loss of expectation greater than or equal to zero. If a deviation does in fact increase a player's expectation, then the strategy was not previously an equilibrium strategy provided that the opponent is playing his or her part of the equilibrium.