[jai]

[ QUOTE ]
In a full loose game, you are going to lose here about two times out of every three. Honest. And when you win, six times out of eleven you'll only win the high half of the pot. Honest.

[/ QUOTE ]

This depends way too heavily on number of opponents and hand ranges to make this broad of a statement with any precision. How about we put in some reasonable hand ranges for whatever number of opponents we think is appropriate, and then see what happens in specific scenarios? And as gergery already pointed out, we may not win a hand very often, but still make money by winning a lot the times we do win.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
But that is like arguing that one should not bet the nut flush on turn because the river will pair the board and thus you will lose more by betting/raising the nuts in that spot.

[/ QUOTE ]Not at all the same! In one case you'll lose more often than you win and in the other case you'll win more often than you lose.
Big difference!

[/ QUOTE ]

I think we disagree on how often the set will hold up here. I think the equity calulators agree with me given reasonable ranges for your opponents. (this may change if there are something like 8 people in the pot with implicit collusion and whatnot, I'm not sure...my feeble little mind can't analyze situations that complex.)

[ QUOTE ]
And I'm not trying to be tricky about it. You obviously make it more expensive for yourself when you raise (duh) - and I truly believe you lose more often than you win (at a typical, full, limit-Omaha-8-ring table as commonly encountered in a casino) when you flop top set with nothing else on a 34K flop. There's no doubt whatsoever in my own mind about it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes you will probably lose more pots than you win multiway. No one is disputing that. But that is not the same as whether you are making money by playing a certain hand. You might lose money if you never folded your sets on unfavorable turns or rivers, but I'm fairly sure you can't be doing anything wrong by jamming the flop.