>A few years ago, a young pro named Phil Galfond published a crucial refinement to Mr. Sklansky's point. He showed that the right way to analyze a poker decision is to consider your opponent's "range"—that is, the full set of different hands that he could plausibly have, given all the actions that he has thus far taken.
I find it impossible to believe that concept of a "range" was (a) invented a few years ago and (b) invented by Phil Galfond. This article is disappointing.
Edit: In fairness, the article's sentence is literally correct. But I cringe at its implication.
I find it impossible to believe that concept of a "range" was (a) invented a few years ago and (b) invented by Phil Galfond. This article is disappointing.
Edit: In fairness, the article's sentence is literally correct. But I cringe at its implication.