[sweetjazz]

[ QUOTE ]
WAWB is usually (not always, but usually) relevant to a situation where you must decide how hard to push your hand. If you are either WA or WB then you don't push as hard because it means that you will win the least (because your opponent will likely fold to a raise or re-raise) or lose the most.

I don't think the relative likelihood that you are WA or WB has anything to do with it.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think the point of the OP is that there are situations where we are clearly either WA or WB, but that the relative likelihood of being one or the other is so high that this dictates our action. When we are likely to be WB (and can't get a better hand to fold), we try to take a free card to improve (assuming a typical situation where we have at least a few outs to improve to a better hand than most of his range). When we are very likely to be WA, we continue to put bets into the pot, knowing that our opponent will call or raise with many of the hands in his range that we are WA of.

The likelihood of having the best hand at showdown is always relevant in making poker decisions, and especially so when we can clearly divide our opponent's hand range into two groups, one where our relative likelihood of being best is very high and one where our relative likelihood of being best is very low. (Of course, we may have to further subdivide his hand range based on how they would react to our different possible actions.)

So I think the OP is correct in pointing out that relative likelihood matters, but he does make a glaring omission that you have to consider what the villain's likely reactions to your actions are when you are WA and when you are WB.

The ideal paradigm of WA/WB is when you will receive minimal action when WA and lots of action when WB. But there are many situations at the table when you might expect to get decent action some of the time when WA (as well as all the time you are WB), and you need to figure out the relative likelihood that you are ahead if you get action before deciding whether to keep building the pot or not. The 77 on a K72 example is an extreme version of this: the standard WA/WB line does not apply because we will get action from so many worse hands, so the relative likelihood of being WB when raised and reraised by our opponpent is still low.

I like what the OP is trying to do, because it hints at the fact that WA/WB is not some special line that applies in certain precise cases, but is just an application of poker reasoning.