Quote:
Originally Posted by lawdude
I
You haven't done any modeling of whether this is actually +EV. You just haven't. You assume it is, but you haven't.
And you have? How's this for math. Let's assume villains limp all KQ->Q9, which comes out to 40 combos. Yes, FORTY COMBOS. That's out of hundreds/thousands of hands they can have.
Pot is 6.75 BB, so assuming we make top pair of Q and lose 3BB when we are dominated, we need to win < 33% of the time when we make top pair of Qs. Are we dominated over 2/3 of the time when we make top pair and would win otherwise (TP would hold up)? I don't know, but I think I have most of the math there and it should be easy to plug in ranges and combos. But if I had to guess, seems unlikely.
Actual effective odds are even better, because when we have TP we generally will win more money post flop than we lose due to equity %, but I'm ignoring that for now.
Seems reasonable that when we make top pair of Q we are dominated less than 2/3 of the time.
Quote:
It shows a player can sublimate her own desires to get in the mix with bad players in a situation where she is out of position.
It has nothing to do with discipline or whatever, I don't know why you bring that up in EVERY SINGLE strategy thread. It's whether a hand is profitable or not.
You realize that based on your RIO argument, when it's folded to us in the BB and we have Q5o, we should fold preflop. We have infinite odds in the BB, but due to RIO concerns, we are going to lose money postflop with Q5o, and we should fold.
13:1 in the SB is not infinite odds, but it is VERY high odds. I assume you also don't c/f Q5o in the BB when you flop a Q. Because, like, you probably shoud. According to you.
Last edited by Captain R; 09-12-2017 at 11:42 PM.