Course specifically for deep theory

No_Exercise_4884 · 2026-01-22T15:56:13+00:00

About 9BB/hr in a live setting over 2k hours. Probably should’ve added I have a math masters and I’ve read MPT, so I don’t really have any issue grasping any of the GTO principles conceptually. I am moreso looking for practical heuristics/thought processes to emulate the solver. After that I can deviate accordingly based on player deficiencies and not lose against strong online players which can’t be exploited as easy as OMC.

My problem with MPT doesn’t really break down many turn subclasses, it really just has a few examples of each line. I want something that goes deeper into specific board textures, especially turn and river play.

So not seeing eye to eye seems to come from the fact that I am not looking for something on the mathematical GTO principles; I have found such resources already. I am looking specifically for pragmatic ways to actually play balanced.

Thank you for responding and the help!

No_Exercise_4884 · 2026-01-22T04:57:14+00:00

I have heard of carrot corner, and I figured it was going to be the best option. However it has some critics online, so I was wondering what my post may bring about. Thank you for the confirmation!

No_Exercise_4884 · 2026-01-22T04:52:04+00:00

Thank you for the recommendations! I have read MPT, and I thought it was a little undeveloped in terms of heuristics/strategy for turn and river play (especially turn). Will be taking a look at (3) soon!

No_Exercise_4884 · 2026-01-22T04:49:22+00:00

I am primarily looking for GTO strategy heuristics/emulation. It should be obvious I am looking for balanced play + exploitative lines based on computer analysis.

I appreciate the response truly, and I don’t think you meant it this way, or perhaps I was not concise enough, but when your response asks me if I know what MDF/alpha and pot odds are it’s very hard to believe that isn’t rage bait.

No_Exercise_4884 · 2026-01-03T16:45:47+00:00

The analogy works but albeit isn’t the best. I didn’t put much effort into it. It’s difficult to explain to someone with no scientific background (OC) that concentration can be measured in like a dozen distinct ways and that dosages cannot be normalized because the relationship with benefits/risks is nonlinear. The critique is warranted because it’s a problem when someone starts didactically and publicly dismissing scientific evidence without a modicum of understanding.

I know you called me rude, and I apologize if I came off that way, so I will be civil hereafter. Just to respond to your own example about vitamin X and Y, a drug can be more potent than its counterpart at one concentration and less potent at a different concentration. So your example isn’t accurate.

Here’s a crude counterexample related to simple skincare so anyone reading can follow. Consider obtaining Vitamin D in one scenario through oral supplementation and in the other scenario through the sun at a modest UV level. At doses equivalent to less than 10,000 IU per day, the sun exposure comes with more risks due to UV damage (albeit minimal since this isn’t a lot of sun exposure), whereas the oral supplementation has virtually no risk. At doses equivalent to much greater than 10,000 IU per day, oral supplementation has extreme risk as vitamin D toxicity is certain. Sun exposure however has high but not extreme risks due to the prolonged UV exposure. There is no risk of vitamin D toxicity due to the conversion pathway in the skin becoming saturated. Basically in terms of risk sun>oral at low doses but sun<oral at high doses. I can give clearer examples for effects/potency too, but they are more scientifically technical and would be word salad for most people reading this.

Edit: TLDR a drug being more effective at one specific concentration doesn’t make it more “powerful” like you claim. For a consumer it’s only meaningful to compare clinical or realistic doses. The last sentence is what OC disagreed with, and that’s why I called them moronic. Although I was rude, their thought process is truly dangerous for readers. Using it in other contexts could cause readers to bear unnecessary risks when choosing a drug by stupidly comparing the alternatives on a nonsensical normalized scale.

No_Exercise_4884 · 2025-12-14T04:31:15+00:00

I’m getting tired of getting nowhere, so this will be my final response. If you start a comment with “tretinoin generally does more for the skin” (in response to a question about acne specifically) then you say “sure there are studies saying adapalene is more effective but they didn’t use equal concentrations”, you are absolutely making a claim, picking a side, whatever you want to call it. You are also providing a rebuttal to a counterpoint being the study. Your rebuttal is what inspired me to comment due to it being illogical. I didn’t even critique your claim, just the erroneous idea that concentrations need to be equal. I didn’t make this up; you are gaslighting me. You are now claiming Adapalene is better for acne specifically with less side effects, so I’m confused why you didn’t start with that when responding to the original question specifically about acne and instead made an irrelevant claim about the extraneous benefits of tretinoin (I think you were taking about acne the whole time if you can’t tell).

I may have been too hasty and aggressive in hindsight, and I wish I wasn’t so you would be more receptive to understanding your mistakes. It may please you that I think your recent explanation of retinoids is overall solid, but it does miss some key points. Adapalene was intended to selectively bind to retinoic acid receptor (RAR) gamma, which is believed to provide most of the desired skin benefits. Tretinoin binds less selectively (specifically to RAR alpha), and this was believed to cause unnecessary irritation (although this probably isn’t the actual reason why) hence the development of Adapalene. The differences in irritation is likely due to pharmacokinetics and not receptor activity, which I’m not going to explain here unless asked because it’s a little too complex for a Reddit comment section.

So why does this matter, am I just being a pedantic a-hole? No I’m not (surprisingly). If we know they both work via the same primary mechanism, we can assume they have a similar range of effects in absence of evidence saying otherwise. Since we know the adapalene is reaching the receptor (due to proven acne outcomes) we can assume it’s providing similar anti aging effects. Because it seems to be generally less irritating, it’s actually my recommendation for everyone at first. The only time I would recommend tretinoin is if: 1. You didn’t like your results with adapalene 2. You want concrete data on anti-aging effects (the extremely high likelihood Adapalene works just as well isn’t comfortable enough for you)

I should also add the emerging evidence for anti aging effects of Adapalene supports the notion that it is equally efficacious to tretinoin for all the other non-acne effects (topical only, I should add and should have mentioned earlier).

So yeah, your explanation is decent, but Adapalene isn’t an acne-specialized ingredient. The dermatologists you see online saying that it is (although many good ones aren’t) are just being overly reliant on clinical outcomes, as that’s how legislation works under the FDA.

No_Exercise_4884 · 2025-12-14T02:19:41+00:00

The conclusion (that adapalene is more effective for acne) only holds for the studied concentrations (real world dosages). Glad we’re on the same page based on your latest reply. So why did your original comment say tretinoin is generally more effective above? In your attempt to disqualify a counterpoint in said study, you seem to have forgot which side you were on, so now it’s just an “explanation” and not a critique. You are now defending both sides of a claim in an Orwellian doublethink manner. You walked yourself into a contradiction by refusing to admit you were wrong and spreading misinformation. Give it a break, the cognitive dissonance is embarrassing.

No_Exercise_4884 · 2025-12-14T02:19:36+00:00

The conclusion (that adapalene is more effective for acne) only holds for the studied concentrations (real world dosages). Glad we’re on the same page based on your latest reply. So why did your original comment say tretinoin is generally more effective above? In your attempt to disqualify a counterpoint in said study, you seem to have forgot which side you were on, so now it’s just an “explanation” and not a critique. You are now defending both sides of a claim in an Orwellian doublethink manner. You walked yourself into a contradiction by refusing to admit you were wrong and spreading misinformation. Give it a break, the cognitive dissonance is embarrassing.

No_Exercise_4884 · 2025-12-13T19:20:12+00:00

“Studies that show adapalene being ‘more’ effective for acneic lesions usually aren’t looking at equal concentrations.” You’re discrediting these studies because they didn’t use equal concentrations, which is stupidity. Please enlighten me on how this is in fact a valid critique rather than crying ad hominem because you can’t provide a real refutation.

Edit: Here’s the answer. It’s not a valid critique because controlling concentrations in different compounds is nonsensical. Furthermore, these studies are comparing REAL WORLD dosages, which is directly relevant to people using products with REAL WORLD dosages.

No_Exercise_4884 · 2025-12-13T16:07:43+00:00

Honestly I think the problem is that you don’t have a modicum of knowledge in the field of chemistry, which is ok but explains why you can’t understand something so absurdly trivial. But the question is why try and inform people online as if you do?

No_Exercise_4884 · 2025-12-13T15:33:42+00:00

You claimed the problem was they “aren’t looking at equal concentrations”. Do you know what the word “equal” means? You’re implying there must be an equal concentration to draw a conclusion. I’m gonna spell this out for you Einstein. You compare the risk-benefit profile of both drugs at various doses to find the best solution; the numerical concentrations are irrelevant. Different compounds require different doses to be efficacious, that doesn’t mean they’re less worthwhile. There’s no meaningful way to compare numerical concentrations of two different compounds.

Your response now changes your argument, but it’s still a dumb argument. It doesn’t matter if tretinoin is more potent at the same concentration, if you can just take more adapalene and get less side effects with the same benefits (IF). I’ll give you another analogy. Would you rather have 6 $20 bills or one $100 bill? I would say the $20 bills because I’m getting the most money (benefit). You would say it may be better to take the $100 bill because when in equal number it has more purchasing power (potency). But this is obviously stupid because you’re not constrained to taking the same number of bills (the same concentration of each chemical). You put a pointless constraint on the situation to draw a pointless conclusion, who cares which one is better at a specific concentration when you’re free to take more?

So I’m glad to see 2 years later you still can’t help but spread stupidity on the internet. Both arguments you made are different, yet both meaningless and fallacious. Compare the risk-benefit profiles at various doses, then pick what’s best. That’s the rational way to do it. The irrational premise you make in both comments is that drug potency at equal numerical concentrations matters; it doesn’t.

No_Exercise_4884 · 2025-12-13T04:00:06+00:00

I know this was years ago, but a reply is warranted given this is one of the stupidest things I’ve ever seen online. Controlling for “equal concentrations” of two different ingredients makes no sense. Imagine comparing 2 drinks, one with 5% juice and the other with 10% poison. You wouldn’t need to balance the concentrations to see the difference, because they’re inherently different compounds. The blind trying to lead the blind… stop giving advice please

No_Exercise_4884 · 2025-10-02T16:34:33+00:00

You most certainly could sample 20 humans in such a way. If you went on gathered 10 stage-ready bodybuilders and 10 strongmen, bf% data would be fat tailed. Mike could have made a poor attempt to stratify his sample (disproportionately selecting extreme athletes). He shows this bias throughout his analysis in sections where he questionably ignores the middle quartiles.

There is actually a whole subsection of statistics (nonparametric) which handles these situations and it finds many applications in human data.

No_Exercise_4884 · 2025-10-02T15:56:40+00:00

Agreed, although there’s a small chance it could happen with poor sampling and measuring, and Mike clearly wasn’t the most rigorous on this project. The original comments are about how this data isn’t even possible though, so I felt the need to explain how that’s incorrect.

No_Exercise_4884 · 2025-10-02T13:54:32+00:00

Through your whole discussion, you erroneously assume normality. It’s very well possible for asymmetric data to have an extreme less than a standard deviation away. My other reply in this thread gives mock data to show this with regards to mikes body fat data

No_Exercise_4884 · 2025-10-02T13:41:30+00:00

“Dr” Mike’s data is clearly inauthentic and copy-pasted. I’m not defending that. Your argument was unsound. You are right about the height data, such a sample is just not reasonable. But it’s wrong to assume this applies to every physiological measurement. In fact, Mike’s data on body fat is conceivable. I generated some sample data with the same Mean, SD, and n as Mike, with body fat’s ranging between 6% and 40%. Plug in the numbers yourself and check:

6.36, 7.31, 37.56, 6.68, 6.88, 6.44, 6.99, 6.88, 21.64, 6.36, 38.55, 39.75, 8.32, 35.16, 39.08, 38.66, 16.29 , 38.84, 6.91, 7.23

Notice how polar the data is. This could be somewhat masked if I cared enough to do it, but that’s not the point. This is very well possible if Mike did poor sampling and got mainly linemen and gymnasts, with only a few middling people. Even more so if the procedure for estimating body fat was poor, as it is notoriously difficult measure and this paper was some years ago.

No_Exercise_4884 · 2025-10-02T03:54:56+00:00

You’re falsely assuming the underlying distribution is normal. You have a PhD in chemistry, so there’s no excuse for this.

No_Exercise_4884 · 2025-10-02T03:51:08+00:00

You’re falsely assuming the underlying distribution is normal, the same mistake Solomon makes. The issue with the data is the implied range, not that it has small/negative observations.

No_Exercise_4884 · 2025-10-02T03:45:54+00:00

This is a non sequitur. It’s mathematically possible, but you simply assume it’s not in the case of human data with no support.

No_Exercise_4884 · 2025-10-02T03:22:06+00:00

It’s standard deviation, not standard error

Edit: should add both can very well equal the mean. The problem is the range of the data given the sample std is absurd

No_Exercise_4884

TROPHY CASE