----------------------------------------

Sorry for mess. Posting from phone. Above is quoted from OP original post.




Wouldn't correct calculation be

(1/46)(171.80)+(1/46)(123.52)+(7/46)(198.4)+(37/46)(-20)

=16.48

Seems miniscule difference, but actually comes into play in other examples I ran.

Why x/46? There are 52 cards, and we know 5 of them (our 2 and the 3 on the board). 52-5=47, not 46.

You are correct. I used 46 because that is what Vernon used. But it would be 47.

My point is Vernon figured EV (bravo on time that must of took), of all outcomes of hand.

But he minuses the $20 flop call, instead of adding it into equation.

I am unsure if that is correct. Or would the equation I used be correct.

(1/47)(171.8)+(1/47)(123.52)+(7/47)(198.4)+(38/47)(-20)

=19.66 EV

Someone chime in. Am I wrong?
Where?

First, CMV did use 47 above. I think you might be thinking of his river examples. Secondly, it seems you're taking out the $20 of the call twice-ish, as his EV calcs already include the $20 being in the pot. That cost is not multiplicative. Think of it instead as a sunk cost.

Delete

I did in fact use 46 as my denominator in Part 1, and 47 in the other two. The reason I did that was because in Part 1, we don't just know our cards and the flop--we also know, because the K is on board, that at least one card in Villain's hand is not a spade (making it slightly more likely that we hit one). So in that part only, I could reduce the denominator to 46, but once we expand Villain's range enough in the other two parts, we have to put the denominator back up to 47 since we no longer have even partial information about Villain's hand.

Remember when I said in the OP that there are some "very subtle oversimplifications"? This is basically what I was talking about. The real way to handle these range-adjusted probabilities I thought would be way too much work so I did it this way instead. I was wondering if anyone would ever catch it. Kudos.

After playing with a few numbers.

Found a direct correlation between RIO of dominated high card hand vs drawing suited connectors.

Kinda obvious since we already knew our implied odds are higher vs villains that can't fold.

Depending on a players playing style. Players that generally offer High RIO on our drawing hand, usually offer less RIO on dominated 1 pair hands.

Vice versa.

If they are going to punish you with dominated hands like QJ, then it is highly likely our Implied Odds are higher (also our RIO lower), on our drawing hands.

@mikko, Can you give an example of a hypothetical hand [or real] of a dominated high card hand vs. drawing SCs please? Thanx.