Shots fired. And LA really is a weaker pool. I watched some dude 4bet-gii with 210bb eff with QQ in a 3! pot on 876 twotone on LATB last night. Bottom line, I think Sklansky-Miller gto advice should be applied selectively against other grinders.

While LA games are softer, there are often 3-4 thinking players on LA 5/10 NL+ tables.

Meh. I don't make a secret of the fact that I'm not happy with my results. That's not an argument against my logic, though. If you have one, feel free to make it. Otherwise, you're just trolling (again).

how is that not an argument against your logic? he is saying: your logic leads to the conclusion that strategy A is a good/the best one; strategy A is shown to not meet some measure of success ->therefore the logic that lead you to conclude strategy A was the best must be flawed. obviously there are multiple causation problems here, but i think that is certainly an argument against your logic. he also does go on to provide a comparison group that believe A is wrong and meets some measure of success, which provides additional support to his stance. the argument is abrasively made and you might not agree with it, but its worth considering imo.

It's an ad hominem, nothing more. Dressing it up as an argument against my logic just exposes the causation flaws which you yourself point out.

in what way is what i posted an ad hominem? just because there are multiple causation problems doesnt mean its not evidence against your belief. also, the comparison group portion is specifically meant to address that flaw. i really think the main point here though is that strategies have so many assumptions and inferences involved and they are unprovable in nature, so broadly comparing the strategies of those who to those who win less can yield valuable information, whether or not it is an airtight deduction. i dont really know why you think your position is so unassailable anyways, particularly when many very successful and theoretically sound players disagree with it.