Quote:
Originally Posted by Aaron W.
I still don't understand why you've been hitting this point repeatedly when nobody at all seems to really be saying something to the contrary.
I'm stating facts in response to your questions. I keep saying it because it's really that simple. You consistently attempt to figure out what I really mean as if I have some hidden agenda, when I'm really just stating facts. If you dispute the facts as I have presented them, then by all means dispute away. If you're going to try to read between the lines like you always do, you're not going to find anything there because there's no agenda nor hidden meaning.
Quote:
Especially when it's HU on the river, it is not unreasonable to consider your entire line instead of just the immediate action.
If you want to nitpick my wording, I'll reluctantly attempt to clarify. It's not unreasonable to consider the entire line, but if you are going to pick apart what I'm saying, I'm going to pick apart the ev sources for you in my attempt to clarify.
Do you dispute these facts?:
In equilibrium, checking will always have a non negative ev.
In equilibrium, bluffing the river heads up out of position is 0ev.
If the opponent calls too much in the situation posed by mongidig, bluffing is -ev.
If the opponent folds too much in the situation posed by mongidig, bluffing is +ev.
If you don't dispute these facts, then you're just giving me a hard time with zero benefit to the discussion.