[spintronics929]

[ QUOTE ]
That insurance deal at the end was a mess. Phil came up with about the right odds of 4.5-1, but did so in a totally incorrect way. The way he phrased it made it sound like he was not taking splits into account, because he said 36 to 8 (actually 37-7), which are the odds he will win or split the pot. It seems like Brandon could have made Phil pay out the 12k, because their agreement did not say anything about what happens in a chop.

The real math is 44 unseen cards, 31 win for phil, 7 for eli, 6 chop. So really the odds are 31-7 instead of 36-8, which is still about 4.5-1. So if they ran the river 44 times, phil would pay $372k, and collect $336k. So he paid about $947 in ev, not counting the splits, for the insurance.

[/ QUOTE ]

In practice, it's not the 31:7 ratio that we should be using since Phil asked people who were playing the hand (let's assume that these other players can remember their cards). So basically, we should eliminate the two cards, which give additional info, of the person taking the bet. And also, we should take into account the cards that chop (6 cards).

29:7 (no 9's or J's, no chopping cards)
30:7 (no 9's or J's, one chopping card)
31:7 (two chopping cards)

30:6 (one 9 or one J, no chopping card)
31:6 (one 9 or one J, one chopping card)

31:5 (both 9's and J's)

Now on to the meta-analysis for this particular hand. From Brandon Adam's point of view, he observed that Farha didn't instantly take on the insurance bet. Thus, in some ways, he would be correct assuming that Farha didn't have a 9 or a J in his hands (this isn't correct, which makes us question Farha's math skills since we know he has balls to make bets). And if Adams did not have a 9 or a J (and no chopping cards), he would actually be a 27:7 dog here. So the interesting question is, did Adams make a correct move here if he didn't have a 9 or a J or chopping cards?