[ View Thread ] [ Post Response ] [ Return to Index ] [ Read Prev Msg ] [ Read Next Msg ]

BGonline.org Forums

Clarification

Posted By: Nack Ballard
Date: Sunday, 30 December 2018, at 7:21 p.m.

In Response To: Clarification (Marv Porten)

Hi Marven,

I do not have an opinion about whether the position you posted is a take or a drop. (Apparently, it depends upon which table you believe.) Honestly, I don't even care; it's close.

My issue is with your method set forth for "proving" your take/pass stance. I confess that I didn't read all the posts, but it seems to me that you have never acknowledged that the method is faulty (very, IMO), despite what seem to me to be some articulate refutations. (Please forgive my candor.)

This is why I asked for clarification, in case the discussion had been at cross purposes. Based on your response, it seemed it pretty much had not. Following up, I offered my own refutation in the form of a more extreme example using your method that (easily) supports passing a 27.78% position, which neither Michael's table nor Rockwell/Kazaross come close to endorsing. My hope was that you would see that the method fails in the face of an obvious take, so that you would have a chance to reason it out, retract, and share your new perspective.

Perhaps you still believe your original method is valid, in which case I'm done here (I tried). But if you believe it is invalid (or you're unsure), then the only "proof" you seem to have that the original position is a pass is Michael's table -- you have shown no independent "confirmation." For all I know, Michael's table may be correct, and the position may be a pass, but that's not the point.

Respectfully,

Nack

Messages In This Thread

 

Post Response
Your Name:
Your E-Mail Address:
Subject:
Message:

If necessary, enter your password below:

Password:
 

 

[ View Thread ] [ Post Response ] [ Return to Index ] [ Read Prev Msg ] [ Read Next Msg ]

BGonline.org Forums is maintained by Stick with WebBBS 5.12.