[ QUOTE ]
I still think it's probably somewhere betweeen your #'s and what i said. I think 2.5/1 dog is much more realistic than 3-1 (particularly if he's calling 80% of the time) but FE is probably closer to what you say.
[/ QUOTE ]
Ok, so I ran the numbers in PokerStove, and got a suprising result:
<font class="small">Code:</font><hr /><pre> equity (%) win (%) tie (%)
Hand 1: 31.4306 % 31.10% 00.33% { JTo }
Hand 2: 68.5694 % 68.24% 00.33% { 88+, ATs+, KQs, AQo+ }</pre><hr />
My chances of winning against a better hand is actually just a little worse than 2-1. If we think he plays pairs down to say 55, then I'm exactly a 2-1 dog. I don't think that this shows that the play was good, but I think that it illustrates an interesting point. If next time I think I have as much as 25-30% FE, then all-in is not a bad play.
Or is there a piece of this that I'm missing?