Poker Theory Question For The Day - 5/16/05 - #6

[brick]

In limit hold'em, do you think calling a raise on the river is more profitable in a big pot or a small pot?

A big pot will encourage your opponent to bluff more.
In a small pot the opponent will bluff less, but the pot odds are smaller.

Is the relationship in sync?

[k_squared]

I think that would depend on the opponents in question... and when they specifically tend to bluff.

k_squared

[brick]

Absolutely. It does.

However, on average, it might be worth leaning in one direction or another.

If people tend to bluff way to much at big pots then it becomes more correct to call.
If people tend not to bluff enough at small pots then it becomes more correct to fold.

My gut instinct tells me that players are so much more likely to try to bluff at big pots because they are "emotionally attached" to "their" pot. This would cause it be become even more correct to call.

And maybe, on average, players tend to almost never bluff at small pots because they aren't emotionally attached to the pot. This would be even more reason to fold.

[pheasant tail (no 18)]

[ QUOTE ]
In limit hold'em, do you think calling a raise on the river is more profitable in a big pot or a small pot?

A big pot will encourage your opponent to bluff more.
In a small pot the opponent will bluff less, but the pot odds are smaller.

Is the relationship in sync?

[/ QUOTE ]

If, in a small pot opponents are less likely to bluff and the pot odds are less, wouldn't you be less inclined to call?

And similarly, if in a big pot there is more incentive for the raise to be a bluff and greater odds on the call, it seems that you would call more.

This seems too obvious. Perhaps you did not ask the question that you were trying to ask.

PT

[uphigh_downlow]

The question seems to answer itself.

I suspect you might have meant one is less likely to bluff at big pots since he expects a call anyway.

So given the lower likelihood yet higher odds, should one call here than is a small pot where its more likely that the opponet will bluff, yet the pot odds are lower.

[pheasant tail (no 18)]

[ QUOTE ]
My gut instinct tells me that players are so much more likely to try to bluff at big pots because they are "emotionally attached" to "their" pot. This would cause it be become even more correct to call.

And maybe, on average, players tend to almost never bluff at small pots because they aren't emotionally attached to the pot. This would be even more reason to fold.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is not so clear. It of course depends on the players, but though a bluff at a big pot gains much when successful, they rarely work and need to be skillfully executed.

Bluffs at small pots, though still needing to be skillfully excecuted, often offer the bluffer at least 4:1 on the bluff and are quite profitable when successful. I think they occur much more often than bluffs at big pots.

It is also my opinion that "emotional attachment" induces calls much more often than bluff/raises. Players who know how to effectively bluff raise in a big pot is usually not "emotionally attached" but a pretty good poker player. I do tend to call fishy raises on the river more from a good player than a bad one unless my holding is pretty solid.

[brick]

It is obvious that you should call more (in percentage terms) when the pot is big compared to when the pot is small.

Your thinking at the table should take this into account and I'm sure that it already does. But I still have a question.

Small Pot Example:
Call 1 BB to win 7 BB. Then your opponent needs to be bluffing more than 12.5%.

Big Pot Example:
Call 1 BB to win 19 BB. Then your opponent needs to be bluffing more than 5%.

To re-phrase do opponents adjust correctly on average, or do they generally bluff more than 5% in the big pot example and less than 12% in the small pot example?

In stock market terms is the market "perfect"? Or is it out of sync?

I've always heard to call more in a big pot and less in a small pot, but the more think think about it, I believe that the market is WAY out of sync.

[Guruman]

This question's too broad to be univerally answerable, but I'll draw some more parameters and give it a stab.

I'm assuming that hero has a holding that can only beat a bluff on the river and is calling a raise here. Something like third pair turd kicker or a busted nut-flush draw.

It seems to me like a bluff from anyone would be less likely to succeed in a big pot than it would a small one. No one's dropping out of a 14BB pot with a pair for one bet on the river heads up. It's both a math and a pride thing. While river bets in large pots are probably more often not bluffs, if you have any holding at all it's a devastating mistake to give up once you've come that far.

For a pot to still be small on the river though, the opponents must have checked-through at least one street, and possibly two. In this instance a river-bluff seems as called for as anything, since no one's shown any strength here.

I guess my answer is:

If you've participated in a hand significantly enough to have grown it into a large pot and are not willing to call 1 river bet to showdown, then the mistake you've made was not on that street - it was much earlier in the hand (possibly pre-flop).

If you have anything at all by the river in a very small pot, then a re-raise may be an even better option than a call there.

[lil feller]

[ QUOTE ]
I do tend to call fishy raises on the river more from a good player than a bad one unless my holding is pretty solid.

[/ QUOTE ]

Pocket 6's ringing clear...

lf