[gergery]

[ QUOTE ]
Buzz, the only reason this thread is a "quagmire" is because of the ridiculously detailed, long posts and convoluted examples. If you could make a brief, concise list of the points you are claiming (which are frankly tough to discern at this point), then it would be easier for folks to either agree with you or point out errors. My list, for example, would be:

1) When you have twice the odds drawing to a split as you do drawing to a scoop, and have to risk the same amount in an equal-sized pot (this is the setup in the OP), then the EV in the two situations is equal.

2) Of these two scenarios, drawing to the split has the lower variance.

3) Using twodimes when there are multiple street of action to come can be misleading, unless you are accounting for potential future action correctly, which is non-trivial.

These three points are incontrovertible fact.

[/ QUOTE ]

Fatsy-baby,
You’ve been making points 1 and 2 all along. I agree with those and always have. I’m been making point 3 all along. With which you agree. The original example listed here has only 1 further action, therefore twodimes is correct in stating your equity. And yes that was stated in this problem. But people were asking me what the intent of my original post was, and the answer is that

Summary: with more streets to come, and depending on your opponents, the profit you can make in a hand can vary drastically from what the equity that twodimes says you have. The main driver of this variance is the fact that this is a split pot game and that in splitting you will only get half of all money back that goes into the pot from this point forward.

-g