BGonline.org Forums

"Too good and not good enough": Two common mistakes

Posted By: Daniel Murphy
Date: Friday, 12 February 2010, at 7:53 p.m.

In Response To: "Too good and not good enough": Two common mistakes (Sam Pottle)

ND > DT is precisely what I mean by "not good enough",

Personally, I reserve the phrase "not good enough" to describe positions where

DP > ND > DT

that is, typical "no double, takes."

In any case, lest we feel overwhelmed by nomenclatural challenges, we can be thankful that there only six theoretically possible orderings of ND, DT and DP equities, not all of which can even occur in a money game:

ND > 1.000 > DT
ND > DT > 1.000
DT > 1.000 > ND
DT > ND > 1.000
1.000 > ND > DT
1.000 > DT > ND

Messages In This Thread

• "Too good and not good enough": Two common mistakes
  Timothy Chow -- Thursday, 11 February 2010, at 7:57 p.m.
  • Rollout
    Stick -- Thursday, 11 February 2010, at 8:04 p.m.
  • "Too good and not good enough": Two common mistakes
    Daniel Murphy -- Thursday, 11 February 2010, at 11:41 p.m.
    • "Too good and not good enough": Two common mistakes
      Timothy Chow -- Friday, 12 February 2010, at 1:14 a.m.
    • "Too good and not good enough": Two common mistakes
      Sam Pottle -- Friday, 12 February 2010, at 1:25 a.m.
      • "Too good and not good enough": Two common mistakes
        Daniel Murphy -- Friday, 12 February 2010, at 5:47 a.m.
        • "Too good and not good enough": Two common mistakes
          Sam Pottle -- Friday, 12 February 2010, at 2:00 p.m.
          • "Too good and not good enough": Two common mistakes
            Timothy Chow -- Friday, 12 February 2010, at 3:33 p.m.
          • "Too good and not good enough": Two common mistakes
            Daniel Murphy -- Friday, 12 February 2010, at 7:53 p.m.