[yvesaint]

[ QUOTE ]
One huge problem with Matt's article / point of view.

Did anyone else notice that HE SAW THE AK of diamonds.

I don't know about you, but the last time I played poker for $10,000... not to many people were showing me their cards.

My point is that if just 1 out of 10... or even 1 out of 20 times... your read is wrong... and it's not a coinflip (turns out your dominated)... it scews all the numbers that he based his thesis on.

I don't know about you... but how many times have you been 100% sure someone has AK... only to see them turn over KK or AA.

So, this "realistic / honest" twist thrown into the mix throws all the number to an unprofitable play.

furthermore... if he really wants to stick to his guns... he has to make this same play with 22 - JJ... not just QQ's. Almost exactly the same odds. The only difference is that you have to tell your friends you went out of a tournament with ducks instead of mop-squeezers.

P.S. if your "coin-flip" reading ability and selections are always 100% on... I would like to back you in the next WSOP circuit event.

[/ QUOTE ]

youre arguing a completely different thing than what his article is talking about

its theory

hes saying that if there is a coinflip situation like QQ v. AK, you should take it

theoretically