Nolan, why are you continuing to engage Nick about the specific math? He’s never shown that he understands anything you’ve said, and he consistently ignores the most important points. How many dozen times have you told him that the EV is calculated on the basis of the initial bet only, and that the calculations take into account playing two hands and resplits, only to have him respond, “You are failing to take into account playing two hands!” ?
The more you deconstruct his bad math, the more he keeps posting bad math, and keeps falsely repeating that you’re not considering multi-handed play, although you’ve addressed that nearly a dozen times now.
What’s sad is that by arguing about the specific math, he’s actually managed to convince some people here (who really ought to know better) that he might be right. So why engage him? Why give him that forum? If he would debate the math with you honestly, acknowledging what you’re saying and taking it into account, then of course it would make sense to continue the discussion. But when instead he ignores most of what you’re saying, cherry-picks bits to nit-pick over, and insults everyone in the process, what is there to be gained by continuing this? You’ll just correct his bad formula, and he’ll incorrectly complain that you used the wrong constant because he doesn’t know how to read an EV table, or he’ll incorrectly say you’re wrong because you didn’t multiply the EV by 2 or by 4. It’s an easy game for him to play, and you’re just giving him the material to do so.
That’s why I’ve never been specific about the math in this thread. Any math you post, he ignores, misunderstands, or distorts. I’ve thus seen no value in correcting his formulas, because he never acknowledges the substance of what you’re saying. I had no desire to tilt against that particular windmill.
I suggest you stop engaging him on the math, because you’re getting nowhere with it. He’s demonstrated beyond any doubt that he’s not willing to listen to you. I think we should all just focus on pressing him to provide some concrete evidence for what he’s saying. That’s what I’ve been trying to do, but it’s been easily derailed by your continuing to engage him on the math, which lets him continue his games. I suggest you cut off his fuel supply. Let’s concentrate on getting him to give us some evidence, not an endless stream of horribly mangled formulas.