[jtr]

[ QUOTE ]
I think this post deserves at least a reply.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks.

[ QUOTE ]
First, I do not think your estimates of M,T and B are accurate. Posters in the other post thought they were. It really does not matter much, as these numbers are dependant on the player and situation.

[/ QUOTE ]

Fair enough. I realize there are many games where my estimates would be way off, but from a moderately detailed study of some hand histories, I came up with those estimates for typical players in the Party 2/4 game.

[ QUOTE ]
You have a major flaw in your logic. Simply put, assuming that you will always pay two bets is incorrect. When faced with the decision on the river when you do not improve (assuming your opponent has bet which is not 100%), you will be evaluating your decision soley on B. Using your B=.05, this would be never as the pot will not be laying you 19-1.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is an excellent point. Certainly if you had reason to believe that 2-pair was especially likely to be your opponent's holding, the strategy of calling the turn raise and then folding on the river unless you'd spiked trips or seen the board pair could be very viable. My logic certainly didn't include this: I went with the habit that many of us seem to have (rightly or wrongly) of thinking of the 1BB to call the turn raise, and the 1BB to call on the river, as a package deal. Assuming you've got a voice in your head that says "Don't fold for one bet on the river", as many SSHE readers do, I think it's quite realistic to imagine the two bets as necessarily linked. However, I do take your point -- thanks for the input.