Results-Oriented Thinking (A Malmuth Error)

Check out this link:

http://tinyurl.com/1qx5

[Jim Brier]

I read this on rgp as you did. What Mason says is absolutely correct. What "Mark Glover/Quad Nines" states is also correct. Mason is pointing out that when your opponent is bluffing, you make a big mistake by incorrectly folding on the end. This is true. "Mark Glover/Quad Nines" is also correct in looking at these situations from an EV standpoint. Overall, the decision is a fraction of a bet issue since there will be many times when your opponent will not be bluffing.

Now both parties understand this quite well. But one party is trying to make it look like the other party doesn't understand it.

[BruceZ]

Jim, I think this is an important point that needs to be made, and I had planned to make it myself at some point. It is often stated that a misake that costs you the pot is much worse than one that costs you a bet. This is misleading, and IMO leads many to overemphasize trying to win the pot. A mistake that "costs you the pot" may often really only cost you a fraction of a bet. Mistakes that cost you the whole pot are rare as your decision would have to be wrong 100% of the time.

When your opponent is bluffing, do you also make a big mistake by correctly folding on the end?

If you are results oriented, then the answer is YES.

I think Quad Nine's point is you should judge the quality of your decision by its EV value, not by what later happens. Seems to me that that's a point worth noting.

[budman]

I don't see that there is any mistake in anyone's logic here or that your two positions are antithetical to each other.

Yes, folding a hand for one big bet when there is a decent chance of winning the pot is a very expensive error.

Calling every time when there is a decent chance of winning the pot is not always successful.

However, it does not need to be successful the majority of the time to make the decision to call have a positive expectation.

For the hand in question, he won 7 big bets. After winning that hand, he only needs to win one of the next seven calls to remain positive.

I think.

When your opponent is bluffing, do you also make a big mistake by correctly folding on the end?

If you are results oriented, then the answer is YES."

Yikes, you miss the point of Malmuth's essay! You're talking about 'correctly folding on the end when your opponent is bluffing.' Where did Mason say anything about that? He is talking about what you cost yourself if you incorrectly fold in this spot.

I think Quad Nine's point is you should judge the quality of your decision by its EV value, not by what later happens.

Yes, yes, that's fine, but again QuadNines just misses the point. The point is that you are going to be wrong in your assessments sometimes. Sometimes you will fold on the end when the greatest player in the universe would have realized the chance of a bluff was greater, for example, and that a call would be correct. Or you will call when the universe's greatest player would know you should fold. Now, if you could later go back and identify all of these errors on your part, and you could take back either class of error, thereby getting back all the money it had cost you, which would you take back - the "call when you should fold" errors, or the "fold when you should call" errors? (And for the sake of simplicity, let's say you made an equal number of each.) The former cost you one bet each time. The latter cost you the pot each time.

The moral of the story is that if you must err - and we all must - it is far better to err on the side of calling too much in these kinds of river situations.

Either Jim Brier is right that QuadNines is trying to make it look like Mason has made an error here when he knows full well he hasn't, or QuadNines simply doesn't see the issue clearly. The latter possibility is not unlikely, as he has a history of such unclear thinking. It is difficult, however, for posters to show him his errors because he strings together series of points which are correct in isolation. The problem is that they simply miss the point, just as in this instance. Once "the point" is brought into the equation, it often becomes clear where QuadNines has erred.

[adios]

Jim,

You wrote:

"Mason is pointing out that when your opponent is bluffing, you make a big mistake by incorrectly folding on the end."

and

"Overall, the decision is a fraction of a bet issue since there will be many times when your opponent will not be bluffing."

The first statement QuadNines is calling results oriented thinking. If both these statements are true, then losing a fraction of a bet is big mistake. In all fairness to QuadNines he was pointing out in his post that Mason mentions a threshold where calling becomes profitable. He's pointing out that this is more or less making a decision based on EV. Then later on in the essay he, Mason, states that after his opponent turned over his hand, he had indeed been bluffing so folding would have been a disaster. QuadNines point is, I believe, that you only knew for sure that he was bluffing after the fact and that stating it was a disaster after the fact is results oriented.

We've had a discussion about this situation regarding folding on the river to a bluff ourselves. The only reason I bring it up is that many have more or less pointed out the same thing that QuadNines has here regarding whether or not it is a true disaster. Mason, David, and Ray all say that it is a disaster and in fact Ray tried to initiate a discussion about this. He didn't get any takers. I wish I would have responded then instead of now. Since I respect what Mason, David and Ray say about poker so much I'm trying to be clear on why it is a disaster.

Tom

Me: When your opponent is bluffing, do you also make a big mistake by correctly folding on the end? If you are results oriented, then the answer is YES."

You: Yikes, you miss the point of Malmuth's essay! You're talking about 'correctly folding on the end when your opponent is bluffing.' Where did Mason say anything about that? He is talking about what you cost yourself if you incorrectly fold in this spot.

Me: I know Mason is talking about what happens when you incorrectly fold in this spot. But if you apply his "logic" (that is, results oriented thinking), then folding when your opponent is bluffing is a disaster regardless of whether you correctly or incorrectly fold. Doesn't that tell you something about his "logic"?

You: (And for the sake of simplicity, let's say you made an equal number of each.) The former cost you one bet each time. The latter cost you the pot each time.

Me: If you assume you make an equal number of pot-costing mistakes as you do bet-costing mistakes, then you'd be right. But those kinds of simplistic assumptions get you in trouble at poker. Thinking in EV terms, you look at not only the size of the "mistakes" but also their likely frequency. If you are much more likely to make a bet-costing mistake, then it might well be better to err on the side of folding in these situations.

But if you apply his "logic" (that is, results oriented thinking)...

There are places where results oriented thinking is perfectly valid. And this is one. Be careful not to cling blindly to the view that “results oriented” necessarily always means conceptually flawed.

then folding when your opponent is bluffing is a disaster regardless of whether you correctly or incorrectly fold.

Yes, it is, actually. This is what Sklansky tried to tell you in his brief comment on RGP. You can play correctly in terms of EV, yet still have the result be a “disaster.” I could provide examples, but I’m sure you can think of plenty.

You say, If you are much more likely to make a bet-costing mistake, then it might well be better to err on the side of folding in these situations.

Maybe, if you just about never fold on the end. But that’s not realistic. This may be the heart of the matter. I think for most players the frequency of bet costing errors is not nearly great enough relative to pot costing errors to suggest erring on the side of folding.

It only takes one saved pot to make up for an awful lot of single bets you may have cost yourself in calls when you should have folded. If you instead err on the side of folding, then for every one of those pots you throw away you’re going to have to make an awful lot of correct (perfect information) laydowns to save enough bets to make up for it. That’s not easy to do.

In sum, I think most reasonable players can maximize their EV in these river decisions by thinking about erring on the side of calling.

This is why not only S&M, but others such as Abdul and Izmet have driven this point home for years. Ask Abdul whether he tries to err on the side of folding or the side of calling here. This is part of what Izmet is talking about when he says, “Folding is a disease.”

See my response to Pokermon. Maybe I can clarify further. When QuadNines talks about “correct” or “incorrect,” he’s usually talking from an EV perspective, involving estimates based on incomplete, imperfect information. That’s fine. We all understand. But in the present case, when others talk of a “mistake” of folding when you should have called on the end, they’re talking from a perfect information perspective, from the perspective of whether or not you make the decision you would if you could see your opponent’s cards. So we have two different perspectives. Someone should have made this explicit earlier.

I was trying to get at the perfect info. perspective with my “best player in the universe” thing, but I didn’t make it clear enough.

So what can the perfect information perspective contribute here? Well, when you make these decisions on the river, there will naturally be times when you will not make the decision you would if you could see your opponent’s cards. Each of these “perfect info errors,” “FTOP errors,” or whatever you term them costs you either one bet, or costs your the whole pot. Call when you should fold (if you could see your opponent’s cards), and you lose a bet. Fold when you should call, and you lose a whole pot. From this perspective you don’t need to talk about losing fractions of bets. You have perfect information.

So what should you do when it seems close, and you’re not sure what to do? Either way you go, it might be an error. Mind you, often it may not be close at all. You may simply have assessed the situation badly, missed a giant tell, fallen for a tight image, or...? You just don’t know whether to call or fold. Is it better to lean a little toward calling or folding? Pokermon (who is presumably QuadNines) is the only person I’ve ever heard suggest erring on the side of folding. I think there are good reasons for that. I got into them a bit above, but I’ve run out of time for now.

You can play correctly in terms of EV, yet still have the result be a "disaster."

If you play correctly in terms of EV, then you don't worry about the result. Do you understand that idea?

I think for most players the frequency of bet costing errors is not nearly great enough relative to pot costing errors to suggest erring on the side of folding.

It's important to keep in mind that most people don't make the same number of pot-costing and bet-costing decisions. I know many players call way to often. They are called "calling stations" and they lose tons of money.

From this perspective you don't need to talk about losing fractions of bets. You have perfect information.

But you don't have perfect information when you make poker decisions.

You just don't know whether to call or fold. Is it better to lean a little toward calling or folding? Pokermon (who is presumably QuadNines) is the only person I?ve ever heard suggest erring on the side of folding.

I'll take your confusing me with QuadNines as a compliment. Thanks.

If you don't know whether to call or fold because you think there is a 50-50 chance your opponent is bluffing, then of course you should call. You also should learn about EV.

If you don't know whether to call or fold because both choices have about the same EV, then it doesn't matter much whether you call or fold. If you think you might want to learn some more about EV, QuadNines wrote some helpful threads. I can supply a link if you want.

As for my suggestion about erring on the side of folding, you might want to reread what I wrote.

If you play correctly in terms of EV, then you don't worry about the result. Do you understand that idea?

Who said anything about worrying? If I were QuadNines I'd demand that you to cite a passage where I said anyting about worrying.

I know many players call way to often. They are called "calling stations" and they lose tons of money.

The tons of money they lose is not on such calls on the river.

In any case, the "err on the side of calling" advice, appearing in books such as Mason's and in posts such as Abdul's, is obviuosly not aimed at those players.

But you don't have perfect information when you make poker decisions.

Uh, yeah, I know. There is nevertheless value in understanding the implications of such information.

I'll take your confusing me with QuadNines as a compliment. Thanks.

Gawwwd, give me a break. BTW, I wonder if you’ll flatly deny being he.

If you don't know whether to call or fold because you think there is a 50-50 chance your opponent is bluffing, then of course you should call. You also should learn about EV.

I didn’t say you think there is a 50-50 chance. In fact I said, “Mind you it might not be close at all.” I said that after considering the decision, you don’t know what to do. You’re unclear what the chances he’s bluffing are. You might think that perhaps it’s close, but you’re not confident in your assessment. This comes up often. “Should I call or shouldn’t I? Hmmm.” You need to get a little experience playing poker.

If you don't know whether to call or fold because both choices have about the same EV, then it doesn't matter much whether you call or fold.

What if you suspect the two choices have very different EVs, but you’re unsure? Maybe you’re having trouble with your “on the fly” EV assessment at the table because your opponent has you confused about his play. If you think about this you may start to understand what I (and S&M, Abdul, Izmet...) am saying about erring on the side of calling. You’re missing it.

If you think you might want to learn some more about EV, QuadNines wrote some helpful threads. I can supply a link if you want.

QuadNines seems to think understanding EV is some big deal. That’s about the level he’s at. Fact is, just about anyone who’s studied the game, read these boards, etc. understands EV. It ain’t no big thing.

But when the dust settles, this all gets back to Sklansky’s comment to you that you’re confusing “disaster” with “bad play.” Think about it. Maybe you’ll come to understand what everyone’s talking about. You’re just missing it, pretty much exactly the way QuadNines often misses the point. Hmmm.

[mikelow]

"after considering the decision, you don’t know what to do. You’re unclear what the chances he’s bluffing are. You might think that perhaps it’s close, but you’re not confident in your assessment."

You know who you're talking to, right? If he does have something like Asperger's syndrome, don't expect him to do very well with such ambiguity. (though now that I've said it, he'll try mightily)

How come Glover never responded to this post of Chris Alger's?

http://tinyurl.com/1s6g

Kind of sums up his whole history if you ask me.

I said, I didn’t say you think there is a 50-50 chance. In fact I said, “Mind you it might not be close at all.” I said that after considering...

Just to clarify, I realize of course that the above 50-50 chance does not mean your decision is at all close. I was just trying to make clear that I had not described a situation in which you could narrow down your assessment with nearly as much certainty as either your opponent being 50-50 to be bluffing, or your two options being equal in EV.

[brad]

heres the definitive answer -

how does mark glovers theory or whatever help you play better?

how does mason's comment about folding on the end versus losing a bet make you play better?

im sure you can see the difference.

brad

I think Brad beat me to it, much more succintly, but...

To try to clarify the question of the “mathematical catastrophe” mentioned by S&M and others, I thought it might be instructive to consider the following. Take the same situation in which you are considering a call on the river, knowing you can only beat a bluff. It is of course true that in terms of EV, if your opponent is not bluffing, a call will not cost you a full bet. And if he is, a fold will not cost you the full pot.

However, if you err, is there in fact any difference between a “call when you should fold” error, and a “fold when you should call” error?

Say you misread the chance your opponent is bluffing. Let’s look at two quick EV calculations:

Assume the pot is laying you 9-1.

Situation A) Here you think the chance of your opponent bluffing is 5%, so you fold. But your assessment was wrong, and the chance he would bluff in that spot was really 50%.

Had you called your EV would have been (.5 * 9) + (.5 * -1) = 4.

Thus, with this “fold when you should call” error (an error which in this instance has cost you the pot) you cost yourself 4 bets in EV.

Situation B) Here you think the chance your opponent is bluffing is 50%, so you call. But your assessment was wrong, and the chance he would bluff in that spot was really only 5%.

Had you folded you would have cost yourself nothing.

The EV on your call would be (.05 * 9) + (.95 * -1) = -0.50.

Thus, with this “call when you should fold” error (an error which in this instance has cost you one bet) you cost yourself 0.5 bets in EV.

That’s a 700% difference! So can we agree that it makes sense to err on the side of calling in these spots? And can we agree that whether you look at it as costing you the pot, or simply costing you many times more than a calling error, the type of error we are talking about can reasonably be called a “mathematical catastrophe”?