Has the pro got it wrong?

[The_Bends]

Ok here is an article posted by Paul Samuel on pokerpages

http://www.pokerpages.com/articles/a...s/samuel41.htm

The point of the article is that in his analysis on a board of

4 [img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] 9 [img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] 7 [img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img]

8 [img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] J [img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] beats 4 [img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] 4 [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] 45.56% of the time. Paul himself comments that this is suprisingly high and I thought so too. So I went over to 2dimes and imputted the hands which came out as

pokenum -h 4d 4h - 8s js -- 4s 9s 7c
Holdem Hi: 990 enumerated boards containing 9s 4s 7c
cards win %win lose %lose tie %tie EV
4d 4h 655 66.16 335 33.84 0 0.00 0.662
Js 8s 335 33.84 655 66.16 0 0.00 0.338

So is 2dimes right or is PS? If PS is wrong what is incorrect in his analysis (in the above article)

[kyro]

I think PS forgot the 44 redraw outs...

[LetYouDown]

Twodimes is correct. I'm working on the math now...but I take a computer over a human any day of the week when it comes to math.

[fluff]

I think he made 2 mistakes:

1)Counting 12 outs for the J8s (9 spades and 3 non-spade tens), which gives the hand a 45% chance of winning with 2 cards to come, when in fact the 7 [img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] is not an out.

2)Not counting the outs that the set to make a boat has even if the flush hits.

[kyro]

This raises two questions.

1) How is he a pro? I realize everyone makes mistakes but this isn't even close.

2) Who the hell edits this stuff? I'm sorry, but the minute I see that a gutshot straight and flush draw is a slight underdog to a set, I'm checking the numbers myself. Embarrassing if you ask me.

[The_Bends]

In which case you have to wonder what the hell he's doing. Surely a pro writer who's whole career is based upon his maths would check it before putting it up on such a well known site. Odd.