[SuitedSixes]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The inaccurate numbers were taken from King Yao's book "Weighing the Odds in Hold'em Poker."

[/ QUOTE ]
Waahhh! I have no idea of King Yao's intent with those numbers. That book is sitting next in my pile just below Psychology of Poker. That being said, those numbers ignore those flops that contain an over but also one of your own cards giving you a set. Personally I like having a set. You might not.
[ QUOTE ]
It's a good book if you are concerned with trivial matters like how math applies to hold 'em poker.

[/ QUOTE ] Honestly, what's the point of this reaction when somebody is attempting to point out a not insignificant oversight to your original post/point? If you don't think that excluding those cases where you hit a set should be excluded from that list for functional purposes then I wonder if you really are "concerned with trivial matters like how math applies to hold 'em poker."

[/ QUOTE ]

What did the OP have to do with flopping a set (which is 11.8%)? The original list was only the % of time that the flop will not bring an overcard.

How this whole firestorm began with eastbay saying it's not important is beyond me. It's not important, but useful. I, obviously, made a huge mistake by using the word "should." I clearly should have used the phrase "may like to."

Edit: Why the hell does this thread over 1300 views?