[chief444]

[ QUOTE ]
No. You're ignoring the fact that when he wins, he gets his SB back, so he only loses his flop call 91% of the time.


[/ QUOTE ]
Oh yeah...my mistake.

[ QUOTE ]
KQ is calling correctly. This is just a function of your missed math above though.


[/ QUOTE ]
Yeah, I guess when you round the equity up to 9% and neglect the redraw it is actually.

[ QUOTE ]
No. Here's an obvious counter-argument. If you bet and are called and you have only a 50% chance of winning, you don't make any money. The thing you are ignoring here is that, while the AK wins .91 SB of his opponent's bet, he loses .09 of the bet he put in himself.


[/ QUOTE ]
OK fine. I usually keep these terms seperate when I do the EV calc and you made it sound as if this were just the one term and not both combined.

The second half is confusing because I have no idea what you're calculating or where your numbers come from. It's certainly not how I would do the calculation here so I'm not sure why you think it's any sort of standard way. Also as for comparing it to checking...I really doubt if anyone would do that for AK vs. KQ on a ATx board. I'm not sure why you think this very specific HU example relates to AK against a bunch of unknown hands. But I really doubt if anyone would feel the need to estimate the EV of checking in this example. Your first part (other than the rounding up of EV) is how I've always done it and how I've seen it done for an example like this. So I'm not sure what you feel is new here. It's a completely different situation when you're 5-6 handed. Then I'd be looking at it from an equity point of view because I don't know the opponent's hands so I pretty much have to assign ranges and run a simulation for any analysis, basing my decision off of the equity resulting from the simulation against a wide range of hands for my opponents. This is especially true with a bunch of loose limpers and the raise coming from the BB since no one had to cold-call.

AK_EV + KQ_EV = Existing_Pot is not a new formula. It's what I've always used for an example like this and what I've always seen used for an example like this. I'm not sure why you feel it's some new method.