three hands against one maniac

[shemp]

Your editing destroys what I said.

You are nearly 7:3 against a random hand, ie, better than 2:1.

[mike l.]

ok let's start over then. i didnt understand what you said.

for starters you said:

"The contrarian point (which isn't valid, of course)"

and i assumed you were being sarcastic. were you?

[shemp]

Maybe sarcastic is the right word because of the "of course." I'm not sure. My point was to introduce something you hadn't thought about, even though it is effectively irrelevant -- by which I mean, either in point of fact or at least for the point of this discussion, my observation has no weight, because you know what you know. So before introducing that fact, I was conceding, "this doesn't matter."

Given that she is 2+:1 dog with a random hand. If she gives you 4 bets with such a hand, and goes to 12 when she's better, well, you aren't doing so well. And if she pops you legitimately on the turn, you've lost the profit from the flop. I kind of assume that she either rivered you with Q5o or you won the hand and are kicking yourself for not trying to get more value by re-popping her meaningless turn raise.

[mike l.]

no she beat me. she hit a Q on the turn fair and square.