[roll]

This thread owns.

[ QUOTE ]


I don't think it makes a huge difference.
Let's take a best case scenario

Let's assume 100% continuation bets and $100 stacks.
Raiser pops it to $4, you call in position with your suited connector.
You flop a 12 outer. Pot is $10 to the flop heads up
Preflop raiser leads out for $10, You raise to $40
Just to be arbitrary lets say it's 40% that the raiser has a hand worth pursuing and will eventually get it in with you on the flop or turn (argue with me if I'm horribly wrong here in my assumption)

Assumption 1: he folds, you win 16 dollars 60% of the time.

Assumption 2- he wants to get it in with you- let's say you have 55% equity with your 12+ out draw in these cases
So you win $102 55% of the time= $56.1
You lose $100 45% of the time= $45
So 40% of the time you're +$11.10
so you win $14.04 on average with my assumptions when you flop a big draw that you'd be willing to felt with these better assumptions.

According to the original calculations, you flop your big draw about 7% of the times, which is 13:1. So, if you're calling a raise with these hands 13x-$4, -42 + 1 hand when you flop your draw and make $14.4 on average, so even with better assumptions, you're still losing quite a bit of money. It seems to be a lose lose situation if you call with these cards and your opponent folds immediately or gets you all in as the only 2 options- it really seems to me like they need to make big, incorrect folds. Or there needs to be multiway padding in the pot.



[/ QUOTE ]

But the problem with this post is that there are huge, gaping holes in your EV calculation.

Sure 1 in 14 times you flop a combo draw and that adds $14.4 that will be averaged over 14 scnarios, but what about the other 13 scenarios when you dont flop the combo draw?

Sometimes you will flop a pair, 2 pair, a regular flush or straight draw, trips, quads, broadway, royal, etc...

These non-combo draw scenarios need to be considered as you will be stacking sets and overpairs in some of them (as well as getting stacked once in a while and taking down small pots sometimes too).

So the situation is drastically more complex than you've shown it to be, and the EV is much higher than you've shown it to be.

If anyone is interested in a mathematical analysis similar to this one that includes the missing scenarios just respond and you shall recieve.