What are he trying to say with this article? That a riverbet is a bigger fraction of a turnbet then of a riverpot? So?
And how is Harringtons "...line of reasoning imperfect.". Because he doesn’t chose to calculate the riverbet as a fraction of the riverpot? It's still the same bet.
When Harrington assume that a $500 bet won’t be called 100% of the time his line of reasoning is imperfect because he hasn't considered if a $1000 bet will be called 50% of the time(or all other betsize/call-percent relations), is that’s what he is trying to say?
He just gives $500 bet as an example and probably assumes that the reader understand that if villain calls a $1000 50% of the time it’s the same thing when trying to guess our implied odds.
And what has that got to do with if we think of the riverbet as a fraction of the riverpot or as a fraction of a turnbet?
He just gives $500 bet as an example and probably assumes that the reader understand that if villain calls a $1000 50% of the time it’s the same thing when trying to guess our implied odds.
