what is the point in calling this down?

[tpir90036]

sticking with my string of paired board hands... here is one from today that annoys me:

loose passive party 2/4 and i have K /images/graemlins/spade.gif K /images/graemlins/heart.gif in the cutoff. 4 limpers to me and i raise. SB folds, BB and everyone else calls.

6 to the flop: 8 /images/graemlins/heart.gif 5 /images/graemlins/diamond.gif 3 /images/graemlins/heart.gif

everyone checks to me and i bet, BB and 2 EP limpers call and the other two fold.

4 to the turn: 8 /images/graemlins/spade.gif

the BB now bets. is there any doubt at all that he has an 8? of course not. so against passive players why call this down? i have no idea. but the other 2 fold and i call it down anyway like a dummy and get shown T /images/graemlins/club.gif 8 /images/graemlins/diamond.gif

so the question is: assuming you know your opponent to be weak, passive and someone who would not try to bluff 3 people first to act when the board pairs -- is it OK to just fold now or is that weak tight? i seriously think that if i played a similar situation 100 times i would be shown trips (or a boat) at least 95 of those times agasint passive players. am i crazy??

thanks in advance...
-tpir

[el_grande]

If someone else called or raised I would fold.

But I would call it down against one opponent. I don't think he has an 8 95% of the time. He could have QQ, JJ, TT, or 99, waiting for you to raise. Also, you can't underestimate the typical party player who thinks two-pair is good when there is a pair on board. (i.e. he has a 5 or a 3).

[tpir90036]

i am much more calm now and you are right. i think i would only see an 8 about 70% of the time /images/graemlins/wink.gif it is very possible he had a 5 and thought i was following up on the flop with AK/AQ.

my thinking was that this was heads up and i had to see it through for 2 more BBs just in case i was still ahead. if it would have been multi-way with some action i would have probably bailed.

thanks for your time....
-tpir

[JohnShaft]

I don't make "good" laydowns like this.
Not when the BB bets the Turn and everyone folds to me. And I'm the only one who has to beat him to take down the sizable pot (which I also built).
And I'm getting 5-1 anyway. And I have a slim chance of drawing out even if he *has* the hand.
[Sure if he shows me the 8 I'll fold. Otherwise "show me the money".]

Not even against passive players.
Maybe one day I will.


I just don't DO strong laydowns headsup.

[tpir90036]

heads up i don't make them either. but against passive players i am always shown what i think i am going to be shown and i am wondering if that makes *me* the bad player....

[JohnShaft]

Not necessarily TP. But it is easy to put ourselves on guilt trips and think so for losing bets we "know" we were beat on.
[Incidentally I try never to use a lazy absolute, such as *know*, knowingly. <ponder>When do we *really* know something</ponder>]

But the label "bad player", and if it applies, isn't the true question to a 2+2 style player. "Are you losing bets not making these folds?". That is the question. That is what you really want to know.

OK, so how's about this. A trial/challenge for you, to see if "when you know you really know".
Pick a situation, let's say Paired Boards.
Keep a tally in these spots of when you know you are beat but still call. Mark down the number of bets you cost yourself (when you're right) and the number you win by calling down (when you're wrong).
Do it for a fair sample size, and see what the result is.
Was your _knowledge_ correct? Or did you make money when you wanted to call it down even though you thought it was wrong.
That's a way to get more to the truth of whether what you are doing in these situations is correct or not.

Have I done this?
Nah. I'm too [censored] lazy man.
It's a cross I'd bare. if I could be arsed.

[AceHigh]

[ QUOTE ]
is it OK to just fold now or is that weak tight?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes it OK to fold, but you are getting 9:1 immediate odds and probably 10:2 odds with a river bet, so you have to be right over 83% of the time. So if you are 95% sure you are beat you should fold.

[ QUOTE ]
am i crazy??


[/ QUOTE ]

It's very possible, but not because you would fold in this situation.

[JTG51]

If you know he's a very passive player then you can probably fold. But, 2/4 Party players just love to bet paired turn cards with all kinds of garbage, even into 3 or 4 opponents. Against an unknown Party opponent I'd never fold. I'd much rather raise than fold.

[Nottom]

Raise and fold to a 3-bet

[CrackerZack]

i used to really like this move, but the party retards won't 3-bet, then bet again into you on the river. Its some logical progression of twisted logic. So it costs you 3 to see what would've cost 2, but you win 4 if you fill...but i'm not counting on that.

On further thought, I haven't played on party in months so what do I know.

[tpir90036]

this crossed my mind for a moment. but i don't think the raise has any +EV since he will only fold hands i beat anyway and will call then check/call the river when i am dead. is this correct logic?

[tpir90036]

good point. it is probably an overreaction to say i am right in this spot over 83% of the time. i am going to tale johnshaft's advice and actually track these situations to see how often i am wrong.

thanks for your time!
-tpir

[JTG51]

is this correct logic?

Not completely. You are ingoring the times when he calls your turn raise and your river bet with a worse hand, which will happen quite often against typical Party opponents.

[tpir90036]

so i guess i have the same play either way. typical party opponents might bet with hands i can beat and tricky opponents might bluff at a paired board. so i have a call down either way??

during the hand i just couldn't see many hands an uber-passive opponent would bet into me (pre-flop raiser) on the turn when the board pairs that i can beat.

my problem is that i am looking for a concrete answer in situations like this where there really isn't one. this game is much more complicated than i ever thought it would be....

[AceHigh]

[ QUOTE ]
i am going to tale johnshaft's advice and actually track these situations to see how often i am wrong.


[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know if that will work.

When you make good laydowns you won't know that it was a good laydown, if there is no showdown. And you probably won't have enough data against each particular opponent to make your decisions with a high confidence rate. You will have to use your image and your opponents image to make good decisions.

That's why they call it gambolin'.

[tpir90036]

my point was that i make this lay down way too much....well at least i think i do. i just love poker so much that i am afraid to make really weak plays and want to believe that i am getting better. there, i said it. i need to go to bed now.....

[AceHigh]

[ QUOTE ]
my point was that i make this lay down way too much....well at least i think i do.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's the thing about poker. Often we just don't know when we are playing very well and when we are playing
OK or poorly. So we try to come up with percentages and best guesses.

If you really think you are making this laydown too often you definately need to call, because the pot is getting big. If you never make this laydown, you should think about folding against your more passive and predictable opponents.

Sometimes you will be wrong.

[JTG51]

so i have a call down either way??

That's not exactly what I said. I said I wouldn't fold against an unknown Party opponent. That's a lot different than saying you can never fold.

during the hand i just couldn't see many hands an uber-passive opponent would bet into me (pre-flop raiser) on the turn when the board pairs that i can beat.

You didn't tell us he was uber-passive. If that's the case, you can most likely fold.

[tpir90036]

i know it seems like i don't, but i understand what you meant. it's just very late and i am very buzzed and/or slightly drunk. thank you for your time in responding to my inane bullshit.

just trying to walk that line between weak-tight and a calling station...

-tpir

[JohnShaft]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
i am going to tale johnshaft's advice and actually track these situations to see how often i am wrong.


[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know if that will work.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know, what harm can it do?
As I said, no conclusions want to be drawn until it is a fair sample size. And maybe it's more for peace of mind than anything.

NOTE: In no way was I saying "call them all down and see what happens". I merely meant play as normal, make your decision just as you normally would:
- And if you fold, forget about it.
- But if you think you're beat, but you can't make yourself fold and call, Track it.

If you track a hundred of these decisions you might have a reasonable clue if when you *know* you're beat you're correct. For example if you lost 100/100 then you can probably start making the folds with some peace of mind.
But I think people who *know* they're beat, but are getting huge pot odds, tend to ignore the pot odds and decide they are *certain*. Nothing is certain in life.

[ QUOTE ]
When you make good laydowns you won't know that it was a good laydown, if there is no showdown.

[/ QUOTE ]

This data isn't relevant. We, and TP, aren't talking about the time he *makes* the folds. We're talking about the times he thinks he should but he decides he isn't going to. Folds made are not in this equation for a reason.

In fact if you fold you *do not* make note of the hand. Not even if someone else calls him and you get to see his cards. We're only talking about the times you 'know' you're beat and decide to 'wrongly' call.
You're concentrating on if you would have won the hand. I'm concentrating on the decision.

[ QUOTE ]
And you probably won't have enough data against each particular opponent to make your decisions with a high confidence rate.

[/ QUOTE ]
I don't see why you need data on each opponent AT ALL. We aren't talking about making the folds in this spot against a specific opponent. We also aren't talking about using this information as a *predictive* against a specific opponent. We are talking about making a reasonable attempt at tracking *TP's* decisions, and trying to get data to judge if they are more likely to be right or wrong most often.

Concentrate on the results of (a number of) the decisions, not the players/the cards, or any other factor.

[ QUOTE ]
You will have to use your image and your opponents image to make good decisions.

That's why they call it gambolin'.

[/ QUOTE ]
I call it playing Poker.
If all I was interested in was the gamble I'd play craps.

[Jeremy'sSpoken]

If you raise there one of four things most likely happen,

He was bluffing and folds

He has the set and three bets you make an easy fold

He has the set but just calls and checks the river, which you check getting you to the showdown for the same cost.

He puts you on overcards has a underpair, calls your raise, checks the river which you do as well.

I raise there.