[jjacky]

[ QUOTE ]
You are arguing semantics. Your original argument that the A and/or Q outs are tainted seemed to imply it was because you believed we might be up against an A with a better kicker -- at least that's how I interpreted it. And that is precisely the argument that does not gel with 3-betting preflop.

[/ QUOTE ]

no, i didn`t mean that domination is a big threat. i refered the possibility to be reversed dominated.

[ QUOTE ]
And that's where we essentially disagree. I say we have odds to call, and IF YOU DO, then raising is better.


[/ QUOTE ]

yes, we disagree in both points. i don`t think a call is better than a fold and i don't think raising would be better than calling if a call would be better than folding.

[ QUOTE ]
You claim that I'm saying we don't have odds to call. We are getting 13.5 to 1 (with callers left to act). If we called, we could expect 1-2 more callers, giving us just about the right odds with only 3 outs.

[/ QUOTE ]

no, i DO NOT claim that you are saying we don't have odds to call. i think you overestimate the concept of pot odds. even if we knew we had exactly 3 outs to the best hand and 15:1 odds to call (and no chance to improve the number of outs by raising), a call would be a mistake because we have reversed implied outs (we don`t know which cards are good) and very strong redraws against us.

[ QUOTE ]
Raising is better because:

1) if we get Q3 or A3 to fold, we double our outs.


[/ QUOTE ]

yes, IF an Q3 or A3 is out AND it folds to a raise we double our outs, maybe from 3 to 6, maybe from 0 to 0.

[ QUOTE ]
2) if bad-pair + A/Q kicker are not out there, we have 6 outs anyway, meaning we have a bit of pot equity, and getting any other pairs or draws to fold increases our chances of winning.

[/ QUOTE ]

most that is true, but the effect is VERY small. you forgot to mention the possibility that we might be drawing dead.

a raise cuts our odds to about 8:1. even if we were drawing to 6 outs for sure, the play would be very marginal (given all the possible redraws out there). even a small probability to draw to 3 or zero outs turns this play into a loser. if you count the 6 cards to improve as 5 outs (which is ways too optimistic) this play would have -EV. really, i don`t have any idea how you can possibly count the 6 cards to improve for 5 outs or more.


[ QUOTE ]
Or are you arguing that we actually have no outs, and A + Q are both tainted?

[/ QUOTE ]

i think we might very well be drawing dead or almost dead. there is some chance that one of our cards is tainted. the risk that A and Q are tainted both is very close to zero imo.

i count our cards to improve for about 2 outs if we call, with an increase between 10% and 25% if we raise, to something between 2.2 and 2.5 outs. everything above counting it for 3 outs if we call and 4 outs if we raise is far out of line imo.