|
|
 Originally Posted by wufwugy
Originally Posted by Marshall28
the percentage of the time you are getting yourself in a situation where there is money left to bet on the river, you are out of position, AND you have the nuts is SOOOOOOOOOOOOO low ... (unless you are a bad player--or a really really good one playing against another really good one) that this theorem seems kinda useless to me.
you're attacking the example used to illustrate the theorem, not the theorem.
the particular example given is the only situation where this has any merit because if there are cards to come or remaining bets the dynamic changes. this is what i was telling u in AIM where it starts to get extremely tricky, JMAN type stuff, and very difficult to understand.
otherwise w/ the given example, the theorem still seems kinda useless to me since if bluffs are never in your range u are making yourself more exploitable.
|
Reply With Quote