[McMelchior]

[ QUOTE ]
They have to be considered, even if at a discounted probability.
[..]
But to say that you can totally eliminate them as possibilities based on 2 hours of observation is foolish.

[/ QUOTE ]Sir, I respectfully disagree with your approach.
We are talking about reads. We are not talking about absolute knowledge. This is a very basic and important distinction.

Reads are an approximation to facts. A read can by nature never be made with 100% certainty. But: Reads are our one and only basis for adding information about our opponents holdings to our determination of what is the best play at any given time.

Saying that the OP can't discount certain of OR's possible holdings is correct, but it's also meaningless and therefore shouldn't be done. If we can't discount AA, KK or QQ, then we can't discount 72o, K3 or JTs (the latter being much more likely). Actually, we can't discount the min-raise as a plain and simple mis-click!

In a tournament situation the only practical MO must be to estimate likely holdings based on our observations and discount all other holdings, knowing that "of course he could have XY". Here the assumption must be that holdings our read discounts as unlikely stronger holdings are balanced out by the unlikely weaker holdings.

Any other approach is destructive to our game, by making the evalutation unwieldy and impossible within the time frame allowed.

And, much worse, claiming that the OR must include hands that based on his read are unlikely is detrimental to the development of good reading skills - and should not happen here.

Best,

McMelchior (Johan)