[Buzz]

O.K., Mojo Tooth, I'll look at your response.

[ QUOTE ]
- No reraise by button, hero calls
hero puts in two bets, CO puts in two bets. Four total. EV=2.

[/ QUOTE ]Do you mean EV=2 for Button? If so, that's incorrect. Instead EV=1 for Button, because he has to put in two bets himself and only wins half of the pot.
2+2+2=6,
6/2=3,
3-2=1.
EV=1 (Button gets half of the pot, but his own investment is an expenditure you have to deduct to determine his profit. In other words, you have to subtract Button's own investment.)

[ QUOTE ]
- Reraise by button, one fold, one call
Hero puts in one bet, CO puts in three bets. Four total. EV=2.

[/ QUOTE ]No again, for the same reason.
2+2+0=4
4/2=2
2-2=0.
EV=0

Clear?

Buzz


hate_dr_dre incorrectly thought [ QUOTE ]
at worst his 3-bet would have the exact same result of just calling.

[/ QUOTE ]But that's not true. If Button has to split the pot with CO, and if UTG folds to the double bet but would have called a single bet, then Button loses half of the single bet UTG would have contributed.

(1) Button seems to assume that CO has the low, and that thus Button will have to split with CO in any event. (2) And then Button reasons that UTG is more likely to call a single raise than a double raise.

Button is correct in his reasoning (2). However, Button may be making a mistake in his assumption (1).

If his assumtion is incorrect, Button is making a blunder by not re-raising.

But if his assumption is correct, then he can either raise (gambling that UTG will call the double bet) or call (playing it safe and taking half of a single bet more from UTG).

The (obvious) flaw in Button's reasoning is CO may not actually have the low.

Indeed UTG may be the one with a low - and it may be a poor low that he would have folded to a double bet. And in that case, by not raising Button loses half of the pot.

Thus it's foolish for Button to merely call CO's bet. In playing it safe to win half of a big bet he may be risking half the pot!

I might have pointed that out in my first response to this thread. Instead I simply responded to hate_dr_dre's own incorrect reasoning.

Buzz