where the hell am i?!

[Aaron W.]

[ QUOTE ]
I appreciate the analyses and time you have put into this argument.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks. I'm glad you're willing to stick up for yourself and for fight your arguments. I think it's important that all thoughts and thought patterns be challenged to ensure that nobody is deceiving themselves about the game. Arguing forcefully on a point doesn't make it right, even if everyone else agrees.

Maybe it's a grad student thing to have such a strong emphasis on arguing individual points like we've been doing.

[ QUOTE ]
I did play around with the two dimes site, and it does say that when you are behind to a set and either a OESD and a flush draw you are WAY behind. This is not, IMO a nightmare scenario.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'd be curious to see the results of what you're saying. Remember that WAY behind in a multiway pot does not mean less than 50%.

[ QUOTE ]
Second, I think you, again, discount the maniac too quickly. My position is that maniacs have cards sometimes and you have to account for that appropriately, which means that you don't let thier actions guide your thinking, but bets from maniacs still affect odds. Your position, as far as I can tell, is that maniacs never have cards and that therefore you should not take them into consideration.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think that their play should not be taken into consideration when assessing the strength of your hand. There is a tendency for a capped round of betting to assign EVERYONE in the hand with something cap-worthy. This is an error. So when evaluating your hand, you should not assign stronger hands than you would when the maniac is not there (ie ignore the maniac).

[ QUOTE ]
I do think you have mischaracterized my argument about our friend Mr Maniac, though not willfully -- I am not accusing you of being disengenious or dishonest, just mistaken. The maniacs bet does not mean he has a hand, but it does mean he just altered your odds to call.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree that he has altered your odds to call, but remember that 'odds to call' implies that you think you're chasing and that you need those odds. Although in this case, because of the extreme vulnerability of your hand, true equity is a legitimate concern, much like in Omaha (you have the best hand, but have equity problems because of the number of draws out there -- I ran into this playing with some friends a while ago: I had AQ66 double suited on a JJ6 board, and both opponents held a jack... it was a VERY vulnerable made hand because all of their kickers were live).

[ QUOTE ]
I think you are tending to round numbers in your favor.

[/ QUOTE ]

I wouldn't rule it out. Estimates are affected by intuition, and my intution on this hand was that it should be a fairly easy call. My intuition has proven itself to be wrong many times.

[tytygoodnuts]

At the moment you are getting 23:3 odds or about 7.75:1. If everone caps you are getting 9:1 odds.