You aren't disagreeing with me, you are disagreeing with reality. The fact that hero estimated his call was in the money IS IRRELEVANT.

It was a thought that he had; it can't be converted into chips, and his thoughts can't compel his opponents to contribute to the pot.

The meteorologist's forecast doesn't cause the weather!!

This is a stupider argument than that one about whether you should check AA preflop from the BB.

It's actually relevant. Buster is arguing that it is a mistake to fail to collect, after you make your draw, an amount necessary to show a long run profit.

He's wrong. Your mistake was in paying too much to draw, i.e. an inaccurate estimate of what your implied odds were. If you want to measure that mistake for a single hand, and it's debatable whether you should, your mistake is merely a portion of what you paid to draw.

I.e. the amount of your mistake is NOT the amount you failed to collect after you caught your card. It is merely an error in estimation PRIOR to drawing. E.g. in this case, hero may have paid $35 for a draw that was actually worth only $33; a $2 error.

This is not a "stupid" argument at all. One player has demonstrated a flaw in his thinking and another player is attempting to correct him. Isn't this what 2+2 is largely about?

It's much better to accept the consequences of prior decisions and move on to the current one than try to justify prior decisions retrospectively.

If the flop call was a mistake, then whatever EV we lost then is gone. We can't get it back by playing the turn in a certain way, but we can definitely lose even more if we base our current decision on making sure the flop call was +EV.

I apologize. I shouldn't have called a conversation that included the phrase "you could imagine the SB flying a unicorn" stupid. This is in fact a very essential comversation that should be stickied.

Both parties are talking about maximizing value. The key question here is how you maximize value, not why you are maximizing value.

Agreed, which is what I meant when I said it was a dumb argument when we got to the nitpicking stage.

My original point may have been based on a differing assumption than BB had, that is, I am assuming the with our position and size of the pot OTR if we just call that the PFR's stack is as close to a lock as is possible, while BB obviously feels PFR is committed now but might decommit OTR.

I am willing to risk that for 2 reasons. One, the possibility that SB will overcall (which will nearly guarantee a river call by one or both, pot will be FAR too big compared to money left). The second is the not inconceivable possibility that the PFR is b/f this turn.

Look at what started the conversation:

Whether calling is right or wrong, this reasoning is incorrect and is not a reason to call.

Maybe you think the BadlyBeaten's methods of argument are stupid, but the point he is trying to make is not.

Thanks for reminding me what started this dumb argument. I always forget sarcasm doesn't come through well on the internet, then I got drawn into an argument cause BB's next statement bugged me.

I'll rewrite my statement as I intended it to be read. "Don't call flop without enough IO in the bettor's stack to cover your draw."

Hopefully that clears up any misconception that I intended that statement at face value, ldo.

The question "Will he call if I call, but fold if I raise?" comes up reasonably often, and to some extent, the answer DOES depend on how we got to this point and whether we want him to call.

But the answer emphatically does NOT depend on our belief system, our prejudices, our algorithms, nor the accuracy of our calculations. Hence the voyage to the land of unicorns.

I don't know the answer in this case, and I don't know whether hero should raise. I hope those reading will pardon me for being somewhat bombastic, or if I did give the impression that I had a better answer to the fundamental question than I really do. I was disappointed that no one had suggested an analysis that was closer to the point.