The definitions has you defining a RoR for a particular BR and bet spread and rule set. To do so you assume you will never change you bets. RoR changes as soon as bet ramp, BR or rules of the game change. Comments should be consistent with the things that are true by definition.
Mis-statement 1: "You are playing to a 0% RoR if you constantly resize". Definition you never resize. This statement is inconsistent with the definition.
Mis-statement 2: "That is you RoR from that point forward". By definition once your BR, bet spread or rules of the game change so does your RoR. So once your BR changes you are no longer playing with that RoR.
Mis-statement 3: "Optimal BR growth does not occur with a 13.5% RoR". Since RoR changes every time your BR changes you must resize in order to continue to play with a 13.5% RoR so stating resizing is necessary is redundant. I actually did state resizing but I still was told that optimal BR growth was not achieved if you play with a 13.5% RoR.
I could keep going but the point is the definition is what the definition is. Your statements should be consistent with the definition. When they aren't you start to cause confusion.
There is an excellent essay on this at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipe..._horse_carcass
"I don't think outside the box; I think of what I can do with the box." - Henri Matisse
"Your honor, with all due respect: if you're going to try my case for me, I wish you wouldn't lose it."
Fictitious Boston Attorney Frank Galvin (Paul Newman - January 26, 1925 - September 26, 2008) in The Verdict, 1982, lambasting Trial Judge Hoyle (Milo Donal O'Shea - June 2, 1926 - April 2, 2013) - http://imdb.com/title/tt0084855/
Bookmarks