I am not crazy about the argument and wording that both you guys (Zengrifter and Don) are making.
Zengrifter initially tried to say that CBS is just as good as using the Ill 18, which is preposterous. And he unsuccessfully tried to back off that statement.
Meanwhile Don is correct in what he is saying. There is a cost. And he is able to use simulations to tell just what that cost is.
But that is only part of the debate. Counter Basic Strategy is a form of cover. And all cover has a cost. Don is rightfully pointing out that cost, but the cost is only part of the story. In theory, CBS
should increase longevity and if that is the case then you have to add all that extra play that a player may not have been able to get, had he been playing the Ill 18.
This is one of those situations were simulations don't provide the answer. Real life play does.
CBS is one of several techniques or tools that I use to try to improve longevity, along with things like limiting the information I show in one sitting (short sessions and only showing spread once), as well as playing within certain levels that I feel are better tolerated. Now I can't
prove that any of these things have made a difference. I believe they have and if that is the case, I have gotten alot of extra play and winnings vs someone playing Ill 18. And THAT is not going to show up in the simulations.
I guess my big issue with Don's argument is where he said "few would be STUPID enough to say the reduction is worth it". I guess I am one of those few, but I don't feel it a reduction, as I just explained. I think you both are using some poor choice of words in your arguments.