[DLizzle]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It appears, looking at results, that nath has this intuition, and he has attempted to justify this with some math. Whether or not it worked in this specific 47 UTG example, think about the big picture.

[/ QUOTE ] you must ALWAYS be able to justify your plays with math. ALWAYS ALWAYS ALWAYS. No exceptions. Either the play is plus cEV, or plus future cEV, or plus $EV.

[/ QUOTE ]

I disagree. No one has the poker skill and mathematical capacity to factor all the variables in accurately enough that a solution to any poker problem using math could possibly be complete. You'd have to quantify things that are difficult or impossible to quantify. f poker math.