Ok, well this is how I thought of it, my thinking may be wrong obv.

Another way of looking at this situation is this...

I have QQ I know I came going to face a near pot bet on this street and the next. 1 out of 3 times I will beat his JJ 2 out of 3 times I will lose to his AA/KK.

What happens when I win with QQ 1 out of 3 times vs JJ?
I win the $20 of the dead money that is in the pot at the moment and I also win my opponents $18 turn bet and his $50 river bet.
$20+$18+$50= +$88

What happens when I lose with QQ 1 out of 3 times to KK?
I lose my $18 turn call and my $50 river call. $18+$50=-$68

What happens when I lose with QQ 1 out of 3 times to AA?
I lose my $18 turn call and my $50 river call. $18+$50=-$68

So you can see that even though the calls looked profitable,actually
1 x I will win $88 I didn't have before &
2 x I will lose $68 = -$136

-$136+$88=-$48

$48/3=-$16

Anyway my conclusion is that we will lose $16 avg. per hand in the above example even though the pot odds were in our favour to make the 'value call' on both streets. Therefore folding would be optimal I 'think'.

So my idea/theory is something like this.
Unless you are facing an all in decision or are at the river (the very last betting round.) Then in cases where you know you are very likely to face a bet from a similiar range on the next street but have few outs to improve/unlikely to get paid off more than his next bet if you do - which happens quite often with a marginal made hand - then the equity you need vs. that range to value call is far greater than the pot odds would suggest.


I think/thought my maths was wrong or maybe most people knew this because it seemed pretty obv. from the other angle.

But anyway there's a possibility that the criteria we currently use to evaluate our value calls (Are the pot odds favourable) on early streets may be wrong (Esp. if we can anticipate from history/stats/texture villain is likely to bet the next street with a similiar range again.)