The "Emperor's nose" fallacy & poker

[PhantomGoose]

[ QUOTE ]
Let's say we're playing preflop, your opponent has AKo all in, and you have TT, you want to know that pot odds are roughly 1:1 or the equity is 50% so you can call if there's any dead money.

[/ QUOTE ]

As posted, you are +EV to call regardless of what's in the pot, excepting some tournament or metagame considerations. This is not a pot odds question at all, you're the favorite.

[ QUOTE ]
However, if you average the equities across a bunch of hands you think he may have, the mean of the values you average will equal 50% equity only by dumb luck. In other words, the mean of the things you're averaging isn't the number you wanted. Hence you're making the same kind of error as the peasant.

[/ QUOTE ]

Your results are as accurate as the range you estimated combined with your ability to calculate your actual equity against that range in a game situation.

If your ranges are way off all of the time, then you suck at hand reading.

[ QUOTE ]
By the way, those clamoring for an alternative are commiting another common logical fallacy (which I'm not sure has a cool name unfortunatly). They are of the mistaken belief that debunking a logical structure requires presenting an alternate line of logic.

This is clearly not true, and example are so common I'll let you all go find them.

[/ QUOTE ]
Again, no substance anywhere: just a few broad, sweeping statements with nothing to support them. Did you just make things up in school like this or what?