View Full Version : Calling 1 bet on the river and Time weighted EV
DcifrThs
10-18-2005, 01:04 PM
Im seeing some mathematical and logical fallacies lately on this Mid High board so i thought id just take a second to clear up one that seems to be the most often made:
when you have a decision to make on the river, calling one bet vs. folding and you are 100% sure that it is a "close" decision (lets say + or - .05bbs) then the logic of "you should call b/c it only costs one bet whereas if you fold the pot its a huge mistake" simply does not hold.
I only bring this up b/c i see many people making this argument (and i think i might have in the past as well) but it is just clearly wrong.
The reason why it "seems" so right is the when you take into acct the perspective human beings have with respect to the time it takes to be satisfied, we'd rather be satisfied now than later unless the compensation for waiting is larger than the cost of waiting (opportunity cost etc.)
Assuming we play like a robot (no tilt, no poor decisions made after a pot costing mistake) then we should be indifferent between a -.05bb EV decision now and a cost of money discounted -.05bbEV decision later. But, since we are not robots, we make statements like "cost of calling is small vs. size of pot so you should call b/c the mistake size of folding is greater"
what this REALLY says is "id rather lose X*1bb now (where 0<=X<=1) than fold and have the possibility of losing the POT now" note that the cost of the fold is ZERObb in terms of expectation. so if calling earns you more than ZERO, i.e. the call has a positive expectation it should be made, REGARDLESS Of the time variation between periods of satisfaction.
basically, when a decision is close, it's close regardless of time and everything else so long as everything else doesn't affect the expectation of the decision.
So in these recent river folding examples, the cost of the call and the cost of the fold are close. Folding=0 cost and Calling=C cost. so C is close to 0. if C is positive, we clal and are rewarded the entire pot NOW when we win. if C is negative we cost ourselves C bbs.
therefore, i think the timing issues related to these calls is muddying people thinking.
Sorry for the long rambling non edited post but i just wanted to put that thought out there.
Barron
Dominic
10-18-2005, 01:12 PM
interesting...and I'm always learning stuff from your posts...but how does all this help me make the decision on whether to call or fold?
DcifrThs
10-18-2005, 01:15 PM
[ QUOTE ]
interesting...and I'm always learning stuff from your posts...but how does all this help me make the decision on whether to call or fold?
[/ QUOTE ]
by releasing you from the poor feelings of costing yourself "a pot" when you fold. if you dont tilt and are capable of playing "semi robot like" then a fold when its close may be better than a call b/c the Pr(winning the pot | pot size and previous actions) doesn't quite warrant the call.
it doesn't help us arrive at the correct decision b/c only logic, hand reading etc. can do that. it DOES, however, help us execute the correct decision.
how many times have you been at the river closing the action for 1 bet and say "well, its only 1 bet so if i fold i may cost myself the pot but if i call i may win the pot so i'll call" even though a call would likely be -EV, albeit slightly so???
Barron
johnnycakes
10-18-2005, 01:18 PM
Yeah, I understand, but...
The point of these close river fold posts is that we aren't sure if calling or folding is small -EV or small +EV. We just know that it's close.
Let's assume that we can identify situations where calling has either +.05BB EV or -.05BB EV. It will be 50/50 which one is right. So, if I call 100% of the time, my EV is 0. If I fold 100% of the time my EV is 0.
In this case I'm likely to do a lot more calling than folding.
Why?
It let's my opponents know I won't be bluffed out of decent sized pots on the river.
And, I like seeing the chips shipped my way, which never happens if you fold 100% of these times in this situation.
Did that make sense?
DcifrThs
10-18-2005, 01:20 PM
that analysis makes perfect sense.
i just want to remove everybody from "calling costs little, folding costs much" frame of mind
Barron
krishanleong
10-18-2005, 01:21 PM
[ QUOTE ]
i just want to remove everybody from "calling costs little, folding costs much" frame of mind
[/ QUOTE ]
I blame Ed Miller. /images/graemlins/smile.gif
Great post and totally correct.
Krishan
Dominic
10-18-2005, 01:22 PM
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
interesting...and I'm always learning stuff from your posts...but how does all this help me make the decision on whether to call or fold?
[/ QUOTE ]
by releasing you from the poor feelings of costing yourself "a pot" when you fold. if you dont tilt and are capable of playing "semi robot like" then a fold when its close may be better than a call b/c the Pr(winning the pot | pot size and previous actions) doesn't quite warrant the call.
it doesn't help us arrive at the correct decision b/c only logic, hand reading etc. can do that. it DOES, however, help us execute the correct decision.
how many times have you been at the river closing the action for 1 bet and say "well, its only 1 bet so if i fold i may cost myself the pot but if i call i may win the pot so i'll call" even though a call would likely be -EV, albeit slightly so???
Barron
[/ QUOTE ]
I rarely have a problem folding for one bet if there's an overcall before I'm to act, but you're right, I do sometimes call someones' river bet or raise based solely on the "one bet/whole pot" theory...even if the board and his actions up to that point make me conclude that I am beat. I really feel I am costing myself many BBs this way.
It's especially prevelant in the 10-20 and/or 20-40 games I play, because I'm scared of getting pushed off a hand, even though everything in my being is screaming, "YOU'RE BEAT!"
It's odd that I have an easier time folding in smaller games than that.
La Brujita
10-18-2005, 01:22 PM
Good post. The way I think about it is it doesn't cost you the whole pot if you fold a winner since over n trials you will win the pot some percent of the time and lose that called bet another percentage of the time and if your decision is close those numbers will become close.
Basically restating what you said another way.
Dominic
10-18-2005, 01:24 PM
What about the Sklansky theory that if you have a close decision to make, don't agonize over it - choose one or the other at random - because in the long run, they will even out.
....I think this was Sklansky.... /images/graemlins/tongue.gif
I THINK most posters understand this concept even when they are talking about these river calls.
IMO, the more important concept is our ability to estimate this EV. For this decision usually comes down to a determination of whether we are good 1-10 or even far less. Even if we we in 'comparable' situations like this every day, it is very difficult to cognitively recognize when we are good enough when the probability needs to only be so small. If our odds were 50/50 it would be easier since we could remember from experience that " I am definitely not good here more than not". However, if we win 1 time in ten it very well may seem that we NEVER win. The points is, it is very very difficult to even know if the EV is close.
Now, given we are unsure of our EV we should tend to make the decision that, if we are wrong in our EV estimate, will cost us the least. In these all of nothing scenarios to win the pot, calling is the better play. Add the fact that the more you DON't call, the more correct it becomes to call and the decision to call is even better.
IMO, this growing trend to make folds for 1 bet on the river is caused by player overconfidnece and, unlike some other mistakes, is easily exploitable.
Mathematiclly you are correct. However since we are people emotions are tied to our thoughts and decisions no matter how hard we try to play like robots. One thing that gets to me personally is folding a winner on the river. This bothers me more than anything else in poker. Even if folding is a slightly better play getting shown a bluff throws me off my game
So I am willing to make a slightly marginal -EV play on real close river decisions in order to maintain my ablitily to make more and better +EV decisions later in the session.
Anyways.... Great Post
[ QUOTE ]
I THINK most posters understand this concept even when they are talking about these river calls.
IMO, the more important concept is our ability to estimate this EV. For this decision usually comes down to a determination of whether we are good 1-10 or even far less. Even if we we in 'comparable' situations like this every day, it is very difficult to cognitively recognize when we are good enough when the probability needs to only be so small. If our odds were 50/50 it would be easier since we could remember from experience that " I am definitely not good here more than not". However, if we win 1 time in ten it very well may seem that we NEVER win. The points is, it is very very difficult to even know if the EV is close.
Now, given we are unsure of our EV we should tend to make the decision that, if we are wrong in our EV estimate, will cost us the least. In these all of nothing scenarios to win the pot, calling is the better play. Add the fact that the more you DON't call, the more correct it becomes to call and the decision to call is even better.
IMO, this growing trend to make folds for 1 bet on the river is caused by player overconfidnece and, unlike some other mistakes, is easily exploitable.
[/ QUOTE ]
You beat me to it DpR, this was exactly my thinking when I read Dcifr's post.
Barron is right in is original post; no one could argue that if you knew a river call was -EV, even slightly, that you should resist being tempted by the pile of chips in the middle and just fold. It is those times when you are unsure whether the call is -.05BB or +.07BB that you should err on the side of calling. At least this is how I have always understood the theory, and I think this is what people are referring to when they whip out the famous "calling only costs you 1BB, folding could cost you the whole pot!1!" adage.
- Jags
[ QUOTE ]
what this REALLY says is "id rather lose X*1bb now (where 0<=X<=1) than fold and have the possibility of losing the POT now"
[/ QUOTE ]
If this is your point, what does time value of money and the human tendency toward immediate gratification have to do with anything?
ML4L
Isn't this really a game theory question?
If a call on the river is 0 EV and you are getting 10-1 odds you need to call 10 times and fold 1 time and they need to bluff 1 time in 11 to both be non-exploitable.
I think that's right anyway. And if it is that means you can't say calling and folding are equal because then they will be able to bluff more and make your 1-9 calls look like 1-10 calls.
If this was the last game you were ever going to play with them you could call or fold with equal results, but otherwise you better call a lot more then you fold.
-f
phish
10-18-2005, 03:01 PM
From my experience and observations, the more successful players tend to call more liberally in these situations (when playing holdem at least). Those who agonize and struggle too hard to save that one bet tend not to do as well. (It may be that those who are too nitty on that final call play other streets sub-optimally, but we should always keep in mind that the tendency to try too hard to save that one bet on the end IS an exploitable tendency.)
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
i just want to remove everybody from "calling costs little, folding costs much" frame of mind
[/ QUOTE ]
I blame Ed Miller. /images/graemlins/smile.gif
Great post and totally correct.
Krishan
[/ QUOTE ]
Well Ed made the big point about folding the winner in a big pot being a big mistake. The flip side of that is that you don't want to be a calling station either. Barron is right to challenge the 'gotta call' mentality on the end. I know if I folded more often on the river when I was convinced I was behind I'd have saved a few bets. What I don't - and can't - know is the mathematical position (did I fold often enough). Every time you fold on the end when you had the winner is a big mistake. I am always pleased when I fire the third barrel and two other players fold and I have crap /images/graemlins/grin.gif because it pays double compared to the 5 other bluffs that failed....
AceHigh
10-18-2005, 05:59 PM
[ QUOTE ]
when you have a decision to make on the river, calling one bet vs. folding and you are 100% sure that it is a "close" decision (lets say + or - .05bbs) then the logic of "you should call b/c it only costs one bet whereas if you fold the pot its a huge mistake" simply does not hold.
[/ QUOTE ]
True. But I think we rightfully fear folding too often over calling too often. If we start to fold too often, we encourage our opponents to bluff more and play more aggressively against us. So there is a metagame advantage to calling too often and encouraging straight forward, more pasive play from our opponents.
Also, we can more easily judge if we are calling too often because of the information we gleen from the call. Where it is harder to learn from our bad folds, because we are blissfully unaware of our errors.
DcifrThs
10-18-2005, 06:03 PM
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
what this REALLY says is "id rather lose X*1bb now (where 0<=X<=1) than fold and have the possibility of losing the POT now"
[/ QUOTE ]
If this is your point, what does time value of money and the human tendency toward immediate gratification have to do with anything?
ML4L
[/ QUOTE ]
just babbling i guess but the motivation behind that is that we tend to look at a pot loss now as > fraction of a bb loss now even if the two are exactly equal in expectation.
Barron
bobbyi
10-18-2005, 06:13 PM
Nice. I've actually tried to make this same argument here before. In fact, I remember doing so once in response to one of your hands (http://archiveserver.twoplustwo.com/showthreaded.php?Board=mediumholdem&Number=1813536 ) /images/graemlins/grin.gif.
astroglide
10-18-2005, 06:18 PM
me too!
http://tinyurl.com/98ho7
mc1023
10-18-2005, 06:44 PM
this kind of situation only really happens when your at the river with an opponent and his range of hands is still not defined enough that your call could certainly be +ev, anytime there is uncertainty like that its always going to seem +ev to make the call and when you are certain on the hand your opponent is trying to represent its going to be a clear and easy fold since the situation will seem -ev.
just my two cents.
Ulysses
10-18-2005, 11:05 PM
So, you're just now figuring out the concept of EV?
DcifrThs
10-18-2005, 11:34 PM
[ QUOTE ]
So, you're just now figuring out the concept of EV?
[/ QUOTE ]
a) stop being black
b) i just learned english and am showing off my command of the language
c) i figure reading this will give your mind the workout it needs during a conference call (i.e. none)
d) stop being black
Barron
Justin A
10-19-2005, 12:43 AM
[ QUOTE ]
So, you're just now figuring out the concept of EV?
[/ QUOTE ]
Unfortunately this is true for a lot of posters on the forum, which is why Barron's post is good.
DcifrThs
10-19-2005, 12:47 AM
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So, you're just now figuring out the concept of EV?
[/ QUOTE ]
Unfortunately this is true for a lot of posters on the forum, which is why Barron's post is good.
[/ QUOTE ]
his complaint, however, is that i take too many stupid words like "time weighted EV" to explain a simple concept...with the ultimate irony that BObbi posted a very good example of it in my "when can i make this big laydown" post. astro did as well a while back.
he is correct, imo, and i coulda just as easily said
"hey guys, ive seen a lot of you mix this concept up. stop."
b/c the reason i posted this was b/c i saw multiple posts to day with the thought process along the line of "well, a call is a small fraction of a bb whereas a fold may cost the hwole pot."
in any case, i already apologized to him for the hours of life i must have sucked out of him during his laborious reading of my initial post. so thats the end of it. /images/graemlins/smirk.gif
Barron
The reason why you make borderline river calls is so people dont take shots at you in future hands.
Even most so-called weak players pickup on this sort of stuff.
I think the best way to play is to try and be aware of how many tough folds you have made and start to call down the next few.
blackaces13
10-19-2005, 09:17 AM
[ QUOTE ]
Every time you fold on the end when you had the winner is a big mistake.
[/ QUOTE ]
Isn't the whole point of this thread that the above statement is false? It is possible to correctly fold the best hand on the river.
veganmav
10-19-2005, 11:06 AM
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So, you're just now figuring out the concept of EV?
[/ QUOTE ]
a) stop being black
b) i just learned english and am showing off my command of the language
c) i figure reading this will give your mind the workout it needs during a conference call (i.e. none)
d) stop being black
Barron
[/ QUOTE ]
just curious, what does his skin color have to do with it?
vBulletin® v3.8.11, Copyright ©2000-2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.