[Rudbaeck]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Maybe he likes the book more than you do.

Mason, has it occurred to you that Rolf's ratings are a hedonic scale based on how much he likes the books.Perhaps Rolf's hedonic function is not comparable to yours. That hardly merits any criticism.

[/ QUOTE ]

This would certainly be the case if it was books on poetry they were comparing. However, books on limit hold'em can be evaluated on a rather objective scale. For any given situation there is an identifiable best play, or small set of best plays.

[/ QUOTE ]

How do you define "objective" if I may ask?

I doubt that books on hold'em could be evaluated on an "Objective" scale, and even if they could be Rolf isn't claiming that his reviews are anything more than his subjective feelings about a particular book. So it makes you look silly to them complain that his reviews arent "objective".

[/ QUOTE ]

We can measure it empirically. A dedicated researcher can dig up thousands upon thousands of hands that are similar up to the deciding point we want to study.

Or do you claim that it's impossible to even estimate the EV of raising vs calling on the turn for example? If so, are all non-self weighing strategies equal? (And equal to a perfectly self weighing strategy?)

We are more than well equipped to analyze non-deterministic events. After all many such events are studied on a daily basis. How does a particular TV speech change the job approval rating of the US president? How many uranium atoms will decay in the next second in our sample?

Very simple math allows us to evaluate the EV of a move in poker. We can never predict the exact outcome of this hand, but we can make a very accurate prediction of the outcome if the hand from this point on was dealt out hundreds upon hundreds of times. Which it in effect is.