[UVaHoo]

I've just been skimming some of these posts, but you said, "1) 95% of the time, if a player folds, you actually wanted him to call."

This simply isn't true.

Isn't all of this a Fundamental Theory of Poker argument? If I make a play that's different from the play I would make if I could see your cards, then I've lost money for myself and made money for you.

If you raise with AKo, and I'm holding 22, I'm a slight favorite preflop. If you raise, and I could see your cards, it would be right for me to re-raise. However, in this situation, you'd want me to fold, because my hand is a favorite over your hand. You're making less money if I call or re-raise you than you are if I fold. Why wouldn't you want me to fold?

Also, say you raise with AKo again. I have JTs in the big blind. I'm getting 3.5 to 1 to call. Even though you make money if I call, you're making more money on me if I fold, because if I could see your cards, I'd call you with JTs and see a flop. The problem for you with my call is that even though you still make money, I make more money by calling you than folding. That money comes from someone, and that "someone" is you.

Out of curiosity, have you read "Theory of Poker"? It addresses the basic situation you brought up.

As a multiplayer example, suppose I have 55 on the button. You have AA utg. You raise, and 4 people cold-call. I'm now getting 11.5 to 1 to call, and I'm only a 4:1 underdog to your bullets. It's +EV for me to call you there, and that hurts your overall EV for me to call.