Originally Posted by arcimede$ View Post
As Frank already noted it has nothing to do with success or failure. It all has to do with expectation. Let me put the question back at you in a different way ... if you are playing DDB and held only the ace from AQ (the correct play) would drawing 3 queens be considered a failure?

I suppose most people would, but it would not be a failure for the reasons most of them would think about.

That's the problem with considering low probability results as a reason to make a particular hold. There are all kinds of low probability draws. Why would anyone take that into consideration?

Here's another one that demonstrates that Singer does not always go for big wins. Say you're dealt TTTTJ. Assume a RF will generate enough money to "go home a winner" but the 4 tens won't. Why doesn't Singer hold the suited TJ? Yes, it would be ridiculous to toss the quad tens but this demonstrates a fallacy in Singer's claims. He does not base his decisions on reaching his win goals alone. He factors in the value of the holds. Of course, once you make this type of decision then you have to ask why make the lower return hold in one case and the higher return hold in another? For this Singer has no answer because he never did a risk analysis. It's easy to show that some of his special plays are completely bogus on both counts.
According to Rob he did do a risk analysis. Where the disconnect lies is what Rob considered to be a "risk analysis". That will be in my report. Many of the statements he has made seem false, because as I have said before, he does not use standard definition of words and processes.

Arci says he didn't do a risk analysis
Rob says he did do a risk analysis

They are both right because they are talking about completely different things.