Originally Posted by
ericfarmer
I find this frustrating, since it's reminiscent of similar behavior all the way back in 2003. I make a statement, that you disagree with. I provide elaborating argument and an explicit concrete example demonstrating the claim, and you still avoid direct response. Indeed, in this present case, k_c's comments reflect his understanding and acknowledgment of the problem as well. So you're effectively saying that *both* of us are wrong, but without any actual data to back up this claim.
You say "they are in fact playable." This is very easy to resolve, in a way that you would indeed prove me wrong....
MGP has the software, the algorithm, and the know-how to answer this question. He says this hand is playable. So, how should it be played? There are only three possible answers: stand, hit, or double down. Anything else is deflection. Which is it?
E
Bookmarks