[1p0kerboy]

Matt, let me give you another example.

The pot is $200.

We have the A[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img]A[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img].

The board is 5[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img]6[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img]T[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img]5[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img].

Our opponent holds the A[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img]2[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] and we know it.

Both players have $200 behind.

He bets $65 on a semi-bluff. We raise to $130 because we have the best hand. We figure, it's incorrect for our opponent to get $130 in on this street with nothing but a flush draw.

But this is a fallacy.

Now it costs our opponent $65 to call while there is $395 in the pot. The pot is laying him 6-1 on a call, while he is 1-5.1 to make his flush.

And here's where the fallacy lies:

As soon as your opponent bets, the money is not his. It's part of the pot. So it doesn't really matter when your opponent put what money into the pot up to that point. It's irrelevant.