[Micturition Man]

[ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
I am not making anything of the fluke way the cards came down. I am not being results oriented. Give me some credit here.

[/ QUOTE ]
Well, this is about the only scenario where hero doesn't just put chips in the pot and they go away. Normally, yes, you get credit, but without knowing the results, how can this be seen as anything other than a gamble on a longshot?


[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think I conveyed my point about IO so let me try again here.

If after Phil made his initial completion, the TT guy said "Phil, how about you agree now to just put in a bet dark on every street and we will run out the cards?", it is 100% certain this would be -EV and Phil would be better off folding.

However there is some pot size where the case above is -EV but a 3rd street call of the TT's raise is +EV.

For example say Phil has 30% equity versus the TT, but someone decides to toss in enough money that Phil now needs only 31% equity to blindly put in a bet on every street.

This is still not enough money to to call down, of course, but it is now definitely enough money to call on 3rd.

The reason is Phil doesn't have to blindly put in money on every street. He can save bets by folding on 4th-7th when his equity has dropped below his pot odds.

His opponent on the other hand, because he already has a good hand, can very rarely make these good folds (only when Phil makes open trips, open aces up, or an open 4 flush).

For example say Phil calls 3rd and he catches (9d8d)Ac2s versus (xx)TcJs.

Phil will now simply check-fold.

On the other hand say Phil catches any diamond, any pair, or any straightening card (22 outs I believe, not counting dead cards), and his opponent does not pair his doorcard.

Now Phil will be +EV on calling 4th.

In this way he can substantially improve his effective odds over the blindly calling down odds, and thus require less showdown equity than the pot would seem to indicate.

So the question I was considering is just how much of an equity deficit these implied odds (or whatever they may properly be called) can overcome.

Note I did not list the possibility of making a fluke concealed monster at all. That is too rare to be a significant consideration.