[Spicymoose]

Meh. I guess I will give up now, as I seem to not only be in the minority, but the only one who agrees with myself. I agree with the fact that our assumptions could potentially change everything. It is awesome though when we come up with an equation, and our results show that even when we change our assumptions pretty drastically (within reason), our decision stays the same. This will not always be the same. Often a decision will swing one way or the other depending on how passive or agressive someone is, and how we assume they will play bottom or middle pair. All I am saying is that possibly we could be shown that one option (calling, folding) could be quite a bit better than the other.

Experience is great, I agree, and for the most part there are some really awesome people here who are just that good at knowing intuitively how good they are. I just also think that there are some cases where intuitively people "know" the answer, but in fact they are wrong. I don't know if this is the case here, but I think it could be.

I will stop arguing this point for now. Tomorrow I will attempt to do some math, and then you can all yell at me when you don't like the numbers I put up.