when giving free cards is better than betting vulnerable hands

[ceczar]

[ QUOTE ]
Ceczar its not that your EV calc's are wrong. You just need to include the % of time the read is off and you incorrectly fold the best hand, i.e., when Villain has AT. You're a good player. The EV calcs aren't sophisticated enough.

[/ QUOTE ]
the point of my EV exercise wasn't to evaluate his assumptions, but to evaluate his EV given his assumptions. i am confident they are correct.
given the EV calcs already in this thread for when the reads are correct, and the enormous advantage it shows for checking (ie, it's better even if you get no more money when a scare card hits), i'd say the burden of proof is on you to establish that the naive approach (i'm at least 78% here, might as well get the money in) is in fact better because of the number of times he doesn't have what we think he has. i'm pretty sure you'd need some pretty extreme assumptions to tilt it back in favor of pushing the turn.

[innerpeace]

[ QUOTE ]

Ceczar its not that your EV calc's are wrong. You just need to include the % of time the read is off and you incorrectly fold the best hand, i.e., when Villain has AT. You're a good player. The EV calcs aren't sophisticated enough.

[/ QUOTE ]

imho, i think villain is much more likely to have 47s than ace-ten. ace-ten is difficult to play post flop out of position in this situation. villain would have a hard time knowing where he is in the hand and would have to navigate almost entirely on read. while villain's range is wide, i didn't definitively mean it could be any two cards, just that he could have a large number of possible hands.

[bustowithnobra]

If your that concerned about the boat up, why wouldn't you go all in just merely for the fact to protect your hand. If your called, can't you just run it twice anyway?