[David Sklansky]

"You chastised people for responding, "by the seat of their pants", but if the question is too dificult to get a precise mathematical answer in a live game anyway then what relevance does the correct mathematical solution have? I would imagine that what separates a lot of great poker players from just good ones is how close their approximations are at the table which allow them to work things out quickly enough to be considered by the seat of their pants.

The ability to arrive at the "correct" answer doesn't help much if you need more than a few minutes to get there does it? "

You can't do the math at the table. But you can do it before you post an answer. At the very least you can point out that it is a matter of figuring out the probability that an individual has a calling hand, and then figuring out the probability that one out of eight will have such a hand, and then figuring out the chances that a caller will lose to you and combining it with the chances you steal $300. Estimating all this fairly accurately is extremely easy and few on this forum even tried, or even seemed to realize that the question boiled down to that.

As for how these academic questions matter in the heat of battle the answer is this: You should work out several dozen of these type scenarios, memorize the answer and then extrapolate. I guarantee that Chris Ferguson has done this. For instance if it turns out that moving in with QJs is correct but close, you could deduce that moving in $2000 would be wrong and that moving in $800 with T9s would be right and that moving in $1100 with JTs if three players folded would be right, etc. You could also deduce that these close move ins would turn to limps or folds if players were calling with ace rag. See what I am saying?