[gergery]

[ QUOTE ]
My point was that a computer will calculate the cold odds more correctly, but the human player who has suspicion will recognize more often when the lower probability event has actually occurred. Virtually everyone in this forum in the QQ99 example intuitively knew that someone had AQ even though "statistically speaking" it was more unlikely.

[/ QUOTE ]

Virtually everyone in the in the forum correctly identified that someone had AQ – but most people then incorrectly implied folding was correct based on that. The fact is that my opponents needed to have more than just AQ, and needed to have it a significant percent of the time before folding becomes correct. In the actual hand I had the best equity on the flop for example.

[ QUOTE ]
So when you resort to range of possible hand analysis and use statistics to determine probabilities, I think you are surrendering one of your most powerful intuitive weapons.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not at all. Whether you realize it or not, your intuition just helps you more accurately determine the math. For example, one of the keys in the QQ99 hand was that my intuition said that the chances OtherGuy both had me badly beaten AND would flat call instead of jamming was extremely small – and that the % was small enough that I could continue. Intuition and math are additive.