Never Folding River for Metagame

[theBruiser500]

Okay just reading 1800Gambler's thread on not folding the river for metagame reasons and it really bugs me. Maybe I am missing something and am wrong but I see this all the time here, people never like folding the river for metagame reasons. First of all, I think it just a cop out and rationalization of a bad play.

Secondnly, I just think this metagame stuff is wrong. Jay is a thinking player, he knows that this other thinking player has seen him make this fold on the river. SO WHAT?? Jay has the same information his opponent has, if Jay thinks his opponent will take advantage of it then Jay may be the one that ends up capatalizing on it by calling down this other guys river bluffs, or bluff raising the river or whatever. Jay gave up some information with his river fold but so what, he knows what information he gave up he can adjust now that this new information is out there.

[Senor Choppy]

I might agree if we were talking about B&M play. But given that most people here multitable, and don't have time to wonder if a normally tight player is taking shots at you specifically, it's important to show that you aren't looking for excuses to fold big hands.

I'd rather make a few loose calls every now and then, than constantly wonder if the observant, normally rock-like players are starting to pull things in big pots.

[flub]

The problem with folding rivers at 15/30 and up is the same thing that makes these games harder. Even the fishy / most passive players will take shots and bluff at you. You have to be extroadinarily talented to fold anything decent on the river heads up for a medium+ size pot. The other problem is you're only going to know you made the right decision if they show the hand, so the only way you'll know you've been making bad folds is when you're broke.

That being said, if you're drawing with bottom pair and a flush draw or something, and you miss, you can fold the river of course.

-flub

[theBruiser500]

you are missing my point flub, i'm saying if they start bluffing all the time on the river so what that is good then just start calling down everything

[astroglide]

you don't have one opponent at a full table, you have 9 and they move around (along with their physical and mental notes).

furthermore, you can't know who was bluffing at you or what their reasons were.

even if that were possible, it's not exactly fun being put on the defensive. once they score pots off of you, you have to catch up with them by making adjustments. they are now in the lead unless you overtake them, and they can adjust too. people putting moves on you because of big-looking folds can be avoided with calls that individually cost a maxiumum of a single big bet. that's only full cost for the cases that you are losing 100% of the time you call, and seeing their hand is still often worth something.

[nate1729]

Well, whatever you do you should be worried about the metagame, but never folding isn't the right answer. "I can value-bet the crap out of this guy" is just as metagamable as "I can bluff this guy."

[LarsVegas]

I've been thinking about excactly this lately. I think I've been too uncritical in my river payoffs lately (i.e. paying off EVERY single-time, raises, the lot, without giving any thought to it at all).

Really, it's just about this simple. If I bet the river in first position and some guy raises me and just about the only thing I beat at this point is a bluff (for instance, top pair just good kicker with betting all the way, three players seeing the flop, and a scare card - three flush, three parts to straight/possible kickerhit - hits), if the pot is like 8 big bets before he raises, which would be pretty normal he is risking two bets to win 8 if he is bluffing. If I fold here one in ten, I am making a TON of money of his bluff-raise attempts in the long run if I am wrong to fold getting 9-to-1.

The only thing I can see that could affect this very simple calculation is if villain is bizzarely bluff-raising hands that "he was going to call a bet with anyway", like KTo on a board of Kh-9d-8h-6s-Jh, where I might hold KQ or something similar, and slightly better.

I haven't yet calculated out that one, but I am coming to the conclusion that I probably can save a bet in at least one in ten "can-only-beat-a-bluff" situations, and these saves will represent pure value since, since I will have EV+ on every single time my opponent invests 2 big bets on a bluff, whether I should call or fold on the occasion in question.

I figure with my average of multi-tabling 2.5 tables (does that still qualify as multi-tabling amongst you sick 8 tabling crowd?), if I play a 5-6 hour session, I will be able to make two or three of these solid folds, at the midlimits I usually frequent, this will be enough for a very nice meal and a good bottle of win for my girlfriend and me, so I think I am going to try it out for a while.

lars

[mikelow]

Love it! So it's right to fold sometimes. The thing is not to overdo it, but saving the final bet can buy a meal
or a tank of gas.

[theBruiser500]

in NL i don't mind when people try to bluff me all the time, but i guess in LHE it is just one bet you gain when they bluff which is not so good.

on the other hand you said "calling at mosts costs a single bet" but you yourself started a thread a while ago called the fur coat or something like that about how it's not really a catastrophe to lose the pot, you're not really losing the pot you're losing it averaged out over time which is again the same size of a bet.

"once they score pots off of you, you have to catch up with them by making adjustments. they are now in the lead unless you overtake them"

i think this is completely wrong. if jay made the fold in this hand on the river jay would be the one ahead of his opponents because he made the right play for this specific hand. from there he would be in the lead and then everyone could start adjusting and jay would be able to stay in the lead of psychology or whatever.

i do agree though with your first point that there are 9 opponents and multi tabling it's hard to know at what level the psychological battle will be at with everyone.

[astroglide]

[ QUOTE ]
on the other hand you said "calling at mosts costs a single bet" but you yourself started a thread a while ago called the fur coat or something like that about how it's not really a catastrophe to lose the pot, you're not really losing the pot you're losing it averaged out over time which is again the same size of a bet

[/ QUOTE ]

note the bold. 1 big bet is the absolute worst-case scenario.

[bobbyi]

[ QUOTE ]
note the bold. 1 big bet is the absolute worst-case scenario.

[/ QUOTE ]
That's only true if this is the last hand of poker I'm ever going to play. Or do metagame implications only count when they work in favor of our perferred play?

[astroglide]

[ QUOTE ]
people putting moves on you because of big-looking folds can be avoided with calls that individually cost a maxiumum of a single big bet.

[/ QUOTE ]

there, i'll bold-quote myself for you too. do you even know the context of the hand that (wrongly) sparked a new thread? calling a $60 bet on a 4flush otherwise ragged board against a preflop raiser while holding a set of aces cannot cost more than $60. once you put in $60, your dues are paid and you are less likely to have shots taken against you (in addition to the fact that there is a tiny chance you can still win the pot).

[bobbyi]

[ QUOTE ]
could you explain how calling a $60 bet with a set of aces on a fourflush board could cost more than $60, ever, metagame included?

[/ QUOTE ]
It can cost you $60 now when you lose the hand. And then it can cost you additional money in the future when your opponents value bet hands that they otherwise wouldn't because they saw you pay off here. Do I think that that will happen? No, I don't expect that it will. But I don't agree that it is impossible for this call to end up costing more than $60.

[astroglide]

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=&Number=2037938&page=0&view=colla psed&sb=5&o=1&fpart=1

also see my edited post

you are completely high if you think people start wringing their hands and taking notes when they see a player make a crying call on an A5267 4flush river after the turn was capped and they actually see his aces. "i can't wait to get a piece of THAT action!" it's not remotely a loose call, and anybody watching the hand would SERIOUSLY notice a fold. it's not an average pot standard weak payoff.

[bobbyi]

I was disagreeing with the claim that from a theoretical perspective the upper bound on the cost of a river call is $60. I was not saying that in this particular hand it would cost more.

[astroglide]

the situation which i'm discussing is specifically a fold which you believe to be correct but would look completely bizarre to the table (e.g. cap the turn, fold the river for 1 bet in a huge pot with a big hand heads up closing the action). the upper bound on the cost really is 1 bet for that individual hand. you can say making these kinds of calls in general will cost more money. that's true. but the situation is rare, the pot odds are large, and i've already explained where i feel the value comes from in the metagame.

it's easy to duck out of a multiway action pot without drawing attention to yourself, and it's equally easy to lay down a hand in a small pot without drawing attention to yourself. my position is that a fold that raises a flag is not worth it for metagame reasons. the pot odds just make it easier, and the call is so common that it's not going to create some sort of value betting fiesta (or any adjustment at all for that matter).

[turnipmonster]

[ QUOTE ]
value betting fiesta

[/ QUOTE ]

great phrase!