Again, thanks pzhon for the excellent comments.
[ QUOTE ]
http://twodimes.net/h/?z=774083
pokenum -h 5h 4h - 5d 4d -- ad 7h 6h 3c
cards EV
5h 4h 0.602
5d 4d 0.398
On that board, 54 with at least one heart is the nuts because it is equal to or better than any other hand. 5d 4d is not the nuts because it could be significantly behind.
[/ QUOTE ]
I understand what you're getting at but the point is we're talking about "the nuts" at a given point during the deal. Of course, the hand with the hearts has a significant chance of improving to the nuts on the river, but on the turn it's not the nuts. It's a draw at a better hand but even if it improves to a flush on the river it still may not be the nuts.
We're just trying to define the nuts, not draws at the nuts. We are crystal clear in the FAQ that over the course of the deal what the nuts is changes. I fully understand that to say something is "the nuts" on the flop or turn is a bit nonsensical since there are cards to come, but people hear the word used that way all the time on television broadcasts, so it might be nice for them to really understand what they're hearing.
[ QUOTE ]
I think there should be some mention of analyzers such as Two Dimes and Poker Stove. I'm a mathematician, and I don't bother to do the calculations myself. I use these excellent tools.
[/ QUOTE ]
Yes, for sure. That was in the original set of questions posted on this forum but I left it out somehow. I'll add it today.
[ QUOTE ]
Sorry, but although that is common advice, it is weak-tight and wrong. A maniac is essentially posting an extra blind, and more blind money means there is more reason to get involved, not less, even if you can't steal the blinds.
[/ QUOTE ]
Okay, I give. After spending some quality time with PokerStove last night, I agree with you. I'll modify my answer.
Regards,
T