Originally Posted by
Stealth
I have no interest in engaging in a my count is better than yours discussion as they have been beaten to death. I concur with the myriad of test/sim results that identify what is mathematically optimum. The point I would make is that there is a difference between mathematically optimum and effective. In my intuitive opinion, if I take all the AP counters I know and graph their "effectiveness" on a bell shaped curve, the multi-level highly optimum folks would be on the far right, the wannabes would be on the far left and the hi/lo / KO folks would be in the center. If you find AP play to be an avocation then you belong in the middle (or you are an exception), if you find AP play to be your vocation then you should be on the far right.
Even accomplished athletes dedicate large amounts of time to practice to be able to perform their craft. Their are no professional golfers who don't hit thousands of balls to insure they are sharp. Being on the right side of my bell shaped curve demands a frequency of practice and perfection to be successful or they will be devoured by the brain damage required and the increased cost of errors for the multitude of reasons.
I see folks trying to perform at the professional level without the environment (practice and frequency of play) to warrant their choice. Vanity (I am a very smart person and can do anything!) and ignorance (I do not understand the ramifications of my decision) contribute to their bad choice. The results are higher error rates and less success.
Those of us who have occasion to encourage a new player in their quest should provide a more measured step wise progression for their learning that includes the recognition of the threshold requirements of moving to the optimum. Learning simple before tackling complex is not a bad thing. It is what is best for you, not just what is the best.
As always, consenting opinions are welcome...............
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks