Frank, I'll note that without providing a stronger context within which you want to consider this topic, you invite a lot of verbal masturbation.
That may be exactly what you desire. Sometimes it's useful to leave the parameters loose and allow whatever to shake loose.
However, I can't help to think that you'd be better served by describing the exact aspects of short-term/long-term play consideration in which you're most interested. (I have to think you have a specific focus in mind.)
Still, to play along (right hand being free just now), I'll note that I consider the short-term/long-term distinction largely unmeaningful for most practical applications in play. That is, draw whatever distinctions you may want to, it won't impact how I approach play day to day.
There are key exceptions, of course. But they're relatively few and far between.
And, having said this much, if I were to going stabbing for the distinction between short-term/long-term that I felt was most pertinent to play, it would be the concept of N(0), that has previously been described by NOTI in this thread (and which I have frequently lauded here in the past).
The alternate concept defined in this thread: the play after which one's results are limited to a 1% deviation, doesn't have nearly as much practical utility.
- Harry
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Frank" <frank@...> wrote:
>
> For an analysis I'm currently doing I need a solid definition of Short term vs Long term play. Since I'm unfamiliar with these concepts I'm having trouble locking down the meaning either on paper or in my mind.
>
> Short Term = How many hands?
>
> Long Term = How many hands?
>
> What is the popular consensus on the tipping point?
>
> Thanks in advance.
>
> ~FK
>
