Lol at last post...

I did quite well considering I'd had a few pints lol. Still, the approach I was thinking about has some merit. Of course those decisions are not discrete as I was suggesting, but generally we can consider hands with low equity as if we have none and those where we have a bit more as if we have some etc. Deciding exactly whether we have any showdown value is a critical skill and one I hope to master.
Flop equities
are something I intend to study in equal measure with my games in order to figure out when I should be mucking about on flops etc. One thing I didn't realise was that in heads up pots equity drops massively if you don't have an ace in your hand against a tightish range. For example, on a J75 rainbow board, AQ has 38% equity against a top 10% villain range compared to only 25% with KQ. I have been looking at things like this quite alot recently - in particular boards where we don't pair. I intend to write a study on the subject at some point for my own benefit and reference. Once this knowledge is second nature it should help my hand reading skills immensely. I already feel more comfortable playing flops from the short time I've been working to this end.
Just played a match
against a very loose player, who was playing 80% of hands but then fairly ABC other than that. I don't think I quite adjusted well enough to a tendency he had to fold to continuation bets too often. He also played too many pots imo out of position. Never the less he should actually have won the game other than when I hit a two outer with QQ against his flopped trips on an x88 board. Funniest thing he turned a boat but I sucked out on the river lol. The most interesting hand was this one (analysis at end):
Stage #2032451801 Tourney ID 4819729 Holdem Single Tournament No Limit 10 - 2009-12-02 18:20:15 (ET)
Table: 32970839 (Real Money) Seat #4 is the dealer
Seat 4 - LEESA41 (1,395 in chips)
Seat 6 - BATTERED_SOD (1,605 in chips)
LEESA41 - Posts small blind 5
BATTERED_SOD - Posts big blind 10
*** POCKET CARDS ***
Dealt to BATTERED_SOD [8s 7c]
LEESA41 - Calls 5
BATTERED_SOD - Checks
*** FLOP *** [4c 9h 6s]
BATTERED_SOD - Checks
LEESA41 - Bets 20
BATTERED_SOD - Raises 60 to 60
LEESA41 - Raises 180 to 200
BATTERED_SOD - All-In(Raise) 1,535 to 1,595
LEESA41 - All-In 1,185
BATTERED_SOD - returned (210) : not called
*** TURN *** [4c 9h 6s] [6h]
*** RIVER *** [4c 9h 6s 6h] [Kc]
*** SHOW DOWN ***
LEESA41 - Shows [6c 5s] (Three of a kind, sixes)
BATTERED_SOD - Shows [8s 7c] (One pair, sixes)
LEESA41 Collects 2,790 from main pot
*** SUMMARY ***
Total Pot(2,790)
Board [4c 9h 6s 6h Kc]
Seat 4: LEESA41 (dealer) (small blind) won Total (2,790) All-In HI:(2,790) with Three of a kind, sixes [6c 5s - B:6s,B:6h,P:6c,B:Kc,B:9h]
Seat 6: BATTERED_SOD (big blind) HI:lost with One pair, sixes [8s 7c - B:6s,B:6h,B:Kc,B:9h,P:8s]

Ok, not sure this was the best play for me. Thing is, I discounted anything other than top pair or two pair in which case I don't have alot of fold equity. At the time I thought he may have some weak top pair hand that would have a difficult time calling my shove. I'm basically repping two pair. Anyway let's put those hands into stove and decide how I played it. Let's include the hands he's calling with based on the above decision so second pair +. My equity is forty percent if we are called by any of those hands. I guess this counts the 87 as overcards those times he calls with second pair. I cannot justify his call though thinking about it. If I'm only doing this with this hand and two pair I think we crush his range. So thinking like that we probably get enough folds to make this +ev against most players. Another thing to note was a timing tell I picked up. Most of the time he/she (just noticed the name) was betting quickly and consistently. But sometimes (s)he'd think for a bit then check. I was betting every time after seeing this tell and getting a fold every time. That research I did paid off a little at last :)