Tom,


I believe we disagree (is this the first time?). Quadnines who refuses to speak to me, not that I blame him, is in fact detracting from the value of the A,2 discussion. He has, in his usual manner, taken a viable example of a concept and tried to turn it into a pissing contest. His motive in my estimation is to discredit Sklansky in anyway possible. He does not address the best way to play in this situation. His primary focus is whether or not Sklansky's was wrong for arrogantly stating that "it doesn't depend." The fact of the matter is that Sklansky shows the best (maybe not optimal if there is such a thing) way to play in these types of situations given the assumptions he makes. QuadNines could care less about that. He is out to prove Sklansky wrong at all costs and focuses on something that quite frankly doesn't matter much. Consequently I believe he diverts the discussion and in many ways hurts the vast majority of those that could benefit from following Sklansky's advice.


Vince