I dont like it at all.

It seems to me, that the authors are arguing for a backwards style of NLHE, where we try to minimize our opponents expectation instead of maximizing our own. While its true that if our EV goes up, our opponents goes down, i think its easier to just think of increasing our own expectation and completety ignore that of our opponents. After all, we cant make someone fold or control our opponents bet size...however we can choose to fold more often or bet smaller or what have you with relative ease. For this reason, the concept of denying implied odds is very foreign to me from a theoretical standpoint even though the math behind it is sound.

To elaborate a bit more, the authors have an example of where we hold JJ and our opponent flips over AA and that our opponent made a mistake by letting us set mine against him. However if we flip the situation, with us now holding AA vs an exposed JJ, surely we arent hoping that JJ folds even when hes given proper odds to set mine. In fact, we dont really care so long as he puts money in the pot. Now if the board came Jxx, we can safely fold. OKAY, we arent gonna know what smaller pair he has alot...but by the same token there are some boards where villains actions will tell us exactly what hand he has and where the board is just too wet for us to want to stack off anyway. For instance...if the board came 27Jr, and our opponent suddnely played back at us, theres only a few hands he could really have. Similarly if our opponent wakes up on a T98m board, we're equally less willing to stack off against him. So my point i guess is that we can control what we do, and if we're any good at the game we should be able to narrow down our opponents range so that we dont always stack off against him when he has a pp, or we should be able to choose a bet size that gets the most out of him pre if hes only calling to set mine, or we can decide when our opponent is ahead of us, or whatnot.

Since no other discussion has started yet...thoughts on this? haha