Bob,
You said Linda's strategies have mistakes and errors in them.
Do you define "mistakes and errors" as some decisions which
offer less than optimal payback on some hands, even though the
rest of the decisions in the strategy return optimal payback?
If that's not what you mean by "mistakes and errors" I would be
interested in exactly what you mean.
But, if that is what you mean, then I don't care at all about what you
have to say. If Linda's strategies (or anyone else's strategies)
contained the most optimal way to play EACH & EVERY possible
hand, the strategies would be much too long and I would not be
interested in learning them.
If your "Level 4" strategy is such a strategy, I have no use for it.
I am not going to play EACH & EVERY possible hand perfectly.
Learning and memorizing the "correct play" for EACH & EVERY
possible hand is never going to happen for me.
If your "Level 4" strategy (or any other strategy) does not contain
the "correct play" for EACH & EVERY possible hand, does that
mean it contains "mistakes and errors?" I don't think so.
Curtis
ยทยทยท
On 6/20/07, Bob Dancer <bob.dancer@compdance.com> wrote:
<SNIP>
Taking the high ground is admirable, but you still haven't answered the
relevant criticisms of your book. Please let us know why your own
independent work and contributions made so many mistakes in the Jacks or
Better strategy. And that's arguably the easiest strategy. Some of your
other strategies have bigger errors in them.
<SNIP>
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]