Lord Pein wrote:No, I comprehend it just fine.
No, you don't. First of all, you "-1" (
), but then essentially rephrased what I said. A runner is only successful long-term against a poor opponent. The opponent must be poorer than the runner for the runner to be successful long-term. That's a relative statement that logically implies that, most likely, the runner is better than that particular opponent, at least in this matchup.
Secondly, I stated "long-term," as in over time, not a single instance. Additionally, referring to someone a "runner" implies it as a consistent, dominant way of their play. But then you go on to talk about situational running within a single round, which clearly was not what I was describing. That's either poor reading comprehension, or you're trying to back out and reframe the argument.
Thirdly, I never suggested "rambo style" aggressiveness or recklessness—and don't play that way myself. In fact, I have a lot of success exploiting that tendency in other players.
I have far more experience in more game types than you ever will
Play against me someday and I will show you.
No thanks, I don't enjoy your company. Nor do I fall for meaningless macho challenges.