Checking guarantees a minimum zero ev. If checking is ever negative ev, something is being done terribly wrong.

By "studying" do you mean "putting more weight in mongidig's reads"? Or are you saying that you would make an unprofitable bluff without those reads?

Check-folding guarantees a minimum zero EV. Checking alone is insufficient unless you're assuming you're playing perfectly when your opponent bets.

No. I mean studying river ev to the point of knowing that river bluffs are only profitable vs players that fold too much.

It may be an unprofitable bluff vs the segment of the player pool that calls too much, but it's not necessarily unprofitable.

If you're making -ev plays after checking, it's not the check that is -ev, it's whatever you do afterwards that causes the loss of value.

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.

Especially when it's HU on the river, it is not unreasonable to consider your entire line instead of just the immediate action.

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.
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.

Fair enough. I just find it extremely odd that you went after another poster for stating that betting is good if "he folds [the] river enough" by going into some sort of extended position about how if he calls enough then betting the river is unprofitable.

I'm not going to play tit-for-tat with you. I have been seeking one thing, which is to bring clarity as to why you've argued the line that now ends by saying "If you guys want to bluff the river because you think it’s profitable, I think you have some studying to do." It's clear to me that this is not really about "studying" but about the assumptions you're making about your opponents. This goes all the way back to the initial post that I responded to.

I'm "giving you a hard time" because you seemed to argue something that didn't make a lot of sense in context. A poster says "if he folds often enough, then it's profitable" and you responded with "if he calls exactly often enough then it's 0 EV."

https://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/s...6&postcount=12

I don't really see the value to such a counter and so I inquired and asked you to elaborate. I still don't see the particular merit in that as a counter-argument, but I'm satisfied at this point (based on your statements that you made) that you basically didn't really respond to the poster at all, and it should be viewed as a separate thread of thought.

Ninefingers is one of the most reasonable, level headed, and nice posters in here and I don’t think he took much exception to what I said, if at all. I wasn’t “going after him.” I was attempting to clarify the idea that he presented, which I thought was a bit incomplete.

It's amusing to me that you put "going after him" in quotes when I used no such phrase or made any statements to that effect.

...

I didn't really perceive the idea as needing clarification or being "a bit incomplete" but to each his own, I guess.

Hmmm.

Am I to apologize for engaging in poker discussion now?

LOL -- Whoops. I didn't remember using that phrase.

You're free to post on whatever you choose to post on. You don't need my permission to do so. And (unless I've forgotten something else that I've posted) I have not asked for you to apologize for anything ITT.

Aaron you're doing it again. Please stop.