[chiTown22]

[ QUOTE ]
This is an example of the "sunk cost fallacy". It doesn't matter who put that money in. You want to take the optimal action given your situation. And if you check down and lose a showdown, or fold to a likely turn bet, then you're giving away that money that's in the pot. So this is not a side note, it's an important issue to grasp, I think. You could question whether it's a good idea to get yourself in that situation in the first place, that is, whether you should have put all that money in the pot to get to the c-bet decision, but that's why I did the other calculation to figure out whether it's a good idea to 3-bet preflop or not.

[ QUOTE ]
In no way do I disagree that 3betting is +EV. My post was an attempt to give a conceptually example of why 3betting pure air such as 84o can be –EV.

On a side note, I don't logically agree with evaluating a play at the moment. i.e. “In this case, you risk 18-20 bb to win the 25 bb pot”

Half of that pot is your money. Looking at the hand as a whole you are putting 30BB in the middle to gain 12 if successful. Where is my logic flawed?

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]
I see, let me try and put this in my own words.

So on a flop the decision to c-bet or not is based on 18BB to win 25BB, b/c this is the decision at hand.

However, 3betting with the intention of taking it down on the flop with a c-bet must be evaluated as 30BB to win 12?

?