which would you rather do?

[bernie]

inspired by a post by joe tall. ( thanks for the inspiration)

big multiway hand, big pot.

you have a great, but not unbeatable hand. possibly 10+ outs combined to beat you with one card to come. expensive street. if you c/r, everyone 'may' fold (correctly for some). if you just call a bet, everyone 'may' call (correctly). the bet would be coming from your right for the c/r.

so...

would you rather have them call correctly, or fold correctly in this spot?

comments welcome

b

[Jezebel]

How about the option if you checkraise half the field will fold correctly and half the field will call incorrectly? My vote is for this option.

[bernie]

the assumption is that your image is so tight that they might all fold. meaning, which is worse, letting them call correctly, or letting them fold correctly.

though i do like your option. if only it happened more often AND held up. haha /images/graemlins/grin.gif

b

[Jezebel]

Well... if we "know" that the entire field will fold and the pot is already big, then that would seem to be the obvious choice even if they are folding correctly.

Mamma always said a bird in the hand......espcially if its already a big bird.

[Joe Tall]

[ QUOTE ]
inspired by a post by joe tall. ( thanks for the inspiration)

[/ QUOTE ]

Thank you, bernie, I'm glad I can help.

I'm not going to answer though, not yet anyway.

Peace,
JT

[lil']

You check raise. Good players make plays to maximize their chances to win big pots. I've learned this the hard way, but sometimes greed for more chips gets in the way.

And the more I think about it, the more I think that Joe was wrong to call the turn in his hand. I think I'll go post that there in his thread.

[slavic]

Easy one, in a big pot I want them to fold.

[Brian]

[ QUOTE ]
would you rather have them call correctly, or fold correctly in this spot?

[/ QUOTE ]

Is there ever a situation where you want your opponents to call correctly? I love when they call incorrectly, but when they call correctly, that hurts me. When they fold correctly, well, I'd rather that they call incorrectly, but at least it's not costing me the pot.

-Brian

[EDIT]: I mean, you obviously always want your opponents to make a mistake, so you'd rather that they not fold correctly or call correctly. But one of them costs you the whole pot.

[LetsRock]

I love no-calls with a possibly marginal hand in any size pot.

Hey - you - get outta my pot!

Fold, so you can't outdraw me you squirmy little fish!

[Clarkmeister]

With some very simple assumptions (pot size, exact number of collective outs, ignore the river etc) you could measure the exact difference between the two theoretical outcomes.

The problem, as was pointed out and I am sure you know, is that it never happens quite this simply. "All fold or all call" combined with "we know the bet will come from the exact last person to act" isn't exactly happening very often. At the very least the initial bettor will almost always call, which will affect the outcome of the calculations a great deal depending on the % of outs held against you that he holds.

[CrackerZack]

You'd need a lot more information. Lets say I have the 2nd nut flush and know the nut flush is not out there and am almost 100% certain I'm not up against a set and about 85% certain I'm not up against 2 pair, I'd call and let them in because pretty much no one is calling correctly unless they have the trump ace. Now if I was pretty certain I was up against a set or two, I'd consider the check-raise much more often.

[bernie]

you dont need more info. i gave you the scenarios.

if they will all fold if you raise, do you want them to even if it is correct for them to do so. or if you just call, it will be correct for them to call behind you. if they would all fold correctly, then if they call it would be incorrect. (for the most part. if many call this raise, the last to call may be close to or have a correct call. but you will make more than enough off the wrong calls to make up for the one who does it right)

figure you can see everyone's cards and the above is the conclusion you reach. go from there.

call or raise?

my take is if you dont raise, you're not giving them a chance to make a mistake. you're helping them play right.

1 (kind of) example of this is like a hand i saw where 2 guys turned the nut str8 with a flush draw on the board and 1 guy stopped betting. he only called the raise. i couldnt believe it when the showdown came. someone mentioned not being able to bet with the str8 because the flush draw was out there!?! when else are you going to charge those draws? after they miss?

back to the post. i would be more than willing to take the pot down right there. if anyone wants to incorrectly call, even if they draw out on me, i've made alot of chips on the turn from them for doing so. remember, your hand isnt a lock, so it's not strong enough to just smooth the turn. this is also factored with them reacting to your image since they would fold if you did this. the pot is big, it's time to try and win it.

side benefit if you do have an image this tight on a loose table: start stealing with abandon.

thanks all for the replies

b

[Jim Easton]

[ QUOTE ]
big multiway hand, big pot.


[/ QUOTE ]

You should do what you can to maximize your chances of winning a big pot.

[ QUOTE ]
if you just call a bet, everyone 'may' call (correctly)

[/ QUOTE ]

They aren't making a mistake if they call, but would be making a mistake if they fold.

[ QUOTE ]
if you c/r, everyone 'may' fold (correctly for some).

[/ QUOTE ]

They aren't making a mistake if they fold, it would be a mistake to call.

I c/r and put pressure on them to fold, this way I maximize my chances of winning the pot and force them to make a mistake if they stay in.

This is a Fundamental Theorem question. You gain when your opponents make mistakes, you lose when your opponents play correctly. The last thing you want opponents to do in a big pot is call correctly. You need to put pressure on them to fold or make a mistake in calling. Like Brian said, an opponent folding correctly can't cost you the pot.

[CrackerZack]

I better understand you question now, and the fact its a dream scenario. The real answer is, it doesn't matter. If you call, you give them a chance to mistakenly fold. If you raise, you give them a chance to mistakenly call. Either way, its an EV wash with no further info. If you say a call is marginally correct for 1 person, but completely correct for the others, then you want them to fold. If its reversed, then you want them to call, but without this info, it really doesn't matter. It comes down to what Howard Burroughs said earlier about one of David's speeches. They were discussing raising AKo from the BB. David stated flat out, understand, that by raising you're gonna win the pot less times. This is the same principle in reverse. By raising, you win the pot more often, but it is smaller, by calling, you win it less often, but its bigger. But with all things equal, as it seems in this situation, it makes no difference.

Its really down to your risk aversion, calling is more risky, raising is less risky. Do you invest in growth stocks or bonds? same question, different scenario. Interesting post when read deeply though Bernie. I like it.

[Analyst]

[ QUOTE ]
With some very simple assumptions (pot size, exact number of collective outs, ignore the river etc) you could measure the exact difference between the two theoretical outcomes.

The problem, as was pointed out and I am sure you know, is that it never happens quite this simply.


[/ QUOTE ]

Not this simply, yes, but the key here is that the calculations above are not, well, linear. You need to take into account the risk tolerance of the players. In an overall sense poker players are by definition risk-seeking, since the game is not zero-sum. In a hand-by-hand sense, I think players tend to be risk-neutral, at least the "chasers" - that is, looking at the pot odds (and implied odds), without much consideration to the absolute size of the pot*. In large pots, however, I think the leader tends to switche over to a more risk-adverse attitude - "let's do whatever it takes to win the pot even if it costs some EV". I know that describes me, and I suspect that's what the OP was looking for.

*Technically, this doesn't have to mean a linear utility function, but often does.