I assume you mean by “80/20 answer” that betting between half and full pot will be the correct sizing approximately 80% of the time one bets. I think the actual percentage is significantly lower than 80%.
I think a quick web-search is useful. Having read something is an improvement over having no knowledge, and it’s ridiculous that people don’t do a quick web-search more often. I’m not disagreeing with your point that Googling is better than doing nothing to learn at all.
My first comment just pointed out that what you learn may be quite inaccurate or out-of-date.
Now, I’ll go further and suggest that what you learn may be purposefully misleading. When it comes to politically or financially sensitive topics (and a searcher won’t always realise when a topic is such) those supplying the information you access may be influenced by (or be one and the same as) those with an interest in you receiving incorrect information.
To continue the poker example, a good poker player is unlikely to give away information for free. Therefore the information you read after a quick google is unlikely to be particularly good (there are exceptions: some players will give out some minimal information in the hope that readers will then pay money for more information).
For a variety of reasons, there is plenty of fine information about poker strategy on the internet, and plenty of the most basic stuff (which is, after all, what the web-search we are discussing is about) is free. For other topics, we won’t have so much luck.
When searching the web, sometimes we leave empty handed, sometimes we leave worse than we started.
But mostly we learn something. I’m not disagreeing with the point of your post, just adding my own thoughts.
Yes, but I think “bet half to full pot” is the 80⁄20 answer, and the point of “give it a google” is often to get that 80⁄20 answer.
I assume you mean by “80/20 answer” that betting between half and full pot will be the correct sizing approximately 80% of the time one bets. I think the actual percentage is significantly lower than 80%.
Maybe, but “incorrect” is a spectrum. Sometimes it’s a close second. Especially for someone who is googling for “basics of poker strategy”.
I think a quick web-search is useful. Having read something is an improvement over having no knowledge, and it’s ridiculous that people don’t do a quick web-search more often. I’m not disagreeing with your point that Googling is better than doing nothing to learn at all.
My first comment just pointed out that what you learn may be quite inaccurate or out-of-date.
Now, I’ll go further and suggest that what you learn may be purposefully misleading. When it comes to politically or financially sensitive topics (and a searcher won’t always realise when a topic is such) those supplying the information you access may be influenced by (or be one and the same as) those with an interest in you receiving incorrect information.
To continue the poker example, a good poker player is unlikely to give away information for free. Therefore the information you read after a quick google is unlikely to be particularly good (there are exceptions: some players will give out some minimal information in the hope that readers will then pay money for more information).
For a variety of reasons, there is plenty of fine information about poker strategy on the internet, and plenty of the most basic stuff (which is, after all, what the web-search we are discussing is about) is free. For other topics, we won’t have so much luck.
When searching the web, sometimes we leave empty handed, sometimes we leave worse than we started.
But mostly we learn something. I’m not disagreeing with the point of your post, just adding my own thoughts.