[Robk]

[ QUOTE ]
his "theory" that he's unqualified is based entirely on speculation. The best anyone has managed to show as evidence is King's points about the NFL study

[/ QUOTE ]

people who spend hundreds of hours on 2+2 reading things that strangers have written about poker develop an innate sense for a writers' poker knowledge that is strikingly accurate. its based on the phrases a writer uses, the questions he asks, and the manner in which he asks them. i think that much of the skepticism you are receiving on here is due to the fact that (to me at least) the pokernomics page reads like it was written by someone who knows little to nothing about poker. (i can point out the specific passages that make me think this if you want.)

i dont think this means the study will be bad. for all i know levitt didnt even write the page and is a poker expert. or will acquire more knowledge before/during the study, or will do a great job in spite of a lack of poker expertise. im just trying to explain why some may not have total confidence. since the page was meant to appeal (or adverise, even) to hardcore poker players (those who play many hands and have saved datatbases of them) i do feel it was a mistake to put up such underdeveloped thoughts without consulting one of those members of the u of c family who know more about the game.

also you state that we have scant evidence, yet have not responded to the most damaging comment imo, namely Ed Millers point that advice generated from 10,000 hands will be misleading and perhaps dangerously so. also king yaos point about the flawed nfl study is much more damaging than i think you are giving it credit for, although perhaps thats only because you havent read the study.

in any event im optimistic about the study and will be sending in 50k hands in a few days. good luck to you.