If I remember correctly, you engaged me into this conversation. Now you demand ev calculations with an ultimatum that if I don’t then you’re leaving the conversation. I didn’t want to talk to you in the first place.

You're free to respond or not respond. If you didn't want to, you never needed to, and I don't know why you did. This started because I challenged your notion that we should bother looking for "prime 3-bet-bluffs" on the river. I think it's rather stupid at this level to even be thinking abut it, and probably stupid at any level. (How many players value-raise-fold against river bets and how often? Probably very few and close to never.)

I'm just pointing out that despite the prolonged exchange, you have yet to actually analyze anything. This is not an uncommon pattern in our previous interactions. Up to this point, you still have demonstrated nothing more than spitballed values. Your strategy could have all of the right theoretical components, but be a terrible strategy because the balance is completely wrong. As far as I can tell (and this is a feature of other posts you've made), you're still just guessing about where the various lines are in terms of finding the boundaries between your various hand "types."

While you provide useful theoretical input, you have provided no useful practical analysis to support your ultimate conclusions. I view this as a severe weakness in your presentation, and despite all of your protestations about how what I'm suggesting as a practical strategy is "bad poker" you have not been able to meaningfully demonstrate that the error of my strategy is larger than the error of the noise of the input data.

So yes, I'm "demanding" that you actually show me something. Convince me that all the extra machinations you've gone through thinking about how to assess the "value" of a bet on the turn actually produces a measurable (non-trivial) improvement in your expected value, or at least provide some parameters on the conditions of your opponents to make that happen.

Otherwise, this just comes across as empty blather. If you're going to criticize, you'd better be able to back it up.

Nice post. While I agree that I have to guess at where the margins are, I still think knowledge of correct action region theory is important to have today.

I have no interest in creating a river (0,1) game for both of our strategies and comparing the ev today.