Fold this river? [Archive] - Two Plus Two Older Archives

SoBeDude

02-16-2004, 11:42 PM

fairly passive 8/16 game.

I have 66 UTG and limp. 2 more limpers, the CO raises, button calls, blinds fold, I call.

Flop comes K J 6 rainbow. lucky me. I check, planning on the check-raise. CO bets, button calls, I raise. CO just calls, and now button 3bets me.

I cap, CO folds, and button calls. Turn is a blank. I bet he raises, I 3bet he just calls.

There is really only one hand I can put him on based on the way he played, he has to have KJ.

So now to the river. a Jack.

I check, he bets.

he's going to have jacks-full here almost all the time.

So can I fold to this river bet?

I think there is really no other hand he could have that he might play the way he did, I think he's got KJ the vast majority of the time.

Anyway I called and he showed me KJ.

-Scott

Tyler Durden

02-16-2004, 11:58 PM

By my count (and I'm really tired so my math might be wrong) you're getting 17 to 1. Easy call. Don't fold big hands in big pots.

Depraved

02-17-2004, 12:17 AM

Only if you really know this guy's play. You shouldn't fold your hand if there's anything unknown about him. Your hunch isn't good enough with the hand you hold and the odds you're getting.

elysium

02-17-2004, 12:18 AM

hi sobe
no sobe. you can't fold. you'll never win here, but you got to keep on trying. why? i don't know.

astroglide

02-17-2004, 12:39 AM

folding here is crazy.

Diplomat

02-17-2004, 01:19 AM

I think he will have AA enough times to make a call on the river profitable. (He may also bet something like AK if he is a river bet-bot, and/or thinks you will lay down a hand that you should not, and/or out of complete brainfart desperation)

Save the big laydowns for pre-flop decisions, when the pot is not 17 big bets or so.

-Diplomat

SA125

02-17-2004, 01:33 AM

I think it's for hands like this that they coined the phrase "crying call."

DrSavage

02-17-2004, 01:53 AM

I'd pay him off, people who coldcall with KJ after somebody raised 3 limpers can have anything.

Clarkmeister

02-17-2004, 02:11 AM

Dude, he didn't bet $16 million, he bet sixteen dollars. You call. I've seen plenty of people play AA or AK this way before.

Vehn

02-17-2004, 02:52 AM

[ QUOTE ]
hi sobe
no sobe. you can't fold. you'll never win here, but you got to keep on trying. why? i don't know.

[/ QUOTE ]

astroglide

02-17-2004, 03:07 AM

rofl

Tommy Angelo

02-17-2004, 07:54 AM

"Anyway I called and he showed me KJ."

Like who didn't know that. :-)

I think everyone so far is wrong about what to do and why.

The choice between calling or folding to a final bet on the river is the simplest math in poker. With 17 bets in the pot, if you think you have a better than 1 in 17 chance of having the winner, then call is the right play. In the hand you posted, you wrote it in a way that suggested that you put your chances of having a winner at less than 17-1. If that is in fact what the case was, then your call on the river was wrong. I don't mean subjectively maybe wrong. I mean absolutely and without question wrong.

Tommy

chesspain

02-17-2004, 09:09 AM

[ QUOTE ]
I think he will have AA enough times to make a call on the river profitable.

[/ QUOTE ]

Even though this would mean that his opponent only coldcalled on the button PF, rather than 3-bet, following three limpers and a raise.

SoBeDude

02-17-2004, 11:22 AM

The choice between calling or folding to a final bet on the river is the simplest math in poker. With 17 bets in the pot, if you think you have a better than 1 in 17 chance of having the winner, then call is the right play. In the hand you posted, you wrote it in a way that suggested that you put your chances of having a winner at less than 17-1. If that is in fact what the case was, then your call on the river was wrong. I don't mean subjectively maybe wrong. I mean absolutely and without question wrong.

Hi Tommy,

Thank you for your candid post.

Like many top players you live and die, so to speak, by your reads. And yes, the math is 'simple'. But it is based on a number you calculate soley on your read of your opponent's hand.

In this case, I really felt his only reasonable hand was KJ based on his play.

But the last time I posted a hand like this (Big Pot, River Fold) everyone basically chastized me and said how I must call due to pot size even though my read was there was no way I was ahead. In that situation I think it was just as bad as that hand was multi-way at the river, and I had a much worse hand (just top pair).

In this case, if I'm wrong on my read more than 5.8% of the time I have to call on the end.

Obviously I posted this because I didn't feel confident in my play on the river. Not because I was wrong or right, but because I'm trying to work on my thought process.

Thanks

-Scott

Tommy Angelo

02-17-2004, 11:47 AM

"In this case, I really felt his only reasonable hand was KJ based on his play."

Hi Scott,

I'm pretty sure we don't disagree on anything but I'm going to blab some more on this anyway.

Let's say we are at my favorite beach spot, and I pick up a small rock and point to a large rock sticking out of the water, and I say, I'll bet you a buck I can hit it.

If you thought the chances were less than 50% that I would hit the rock, you should take the bet. Otherwise, no.

I assume we agree so far.

It does not matter why or how you came to your conclusion that my chances of hitting the rock were greater or less than 50%. Dozens of factors could weigh in. Or just one. Doesn't matter. If you, or anyone, are unwilling to bet on your own ability to determine when a bet is a good bet, then you are by my definition a bad gambler.

So when the pot lays me or anyone 17-to-one to call a bet on the river, and I or anyone else thinks, for whatever reason, that the pot is not laying the right odds, and then we go ahead and call anyway, then that is about the dumbest bet possible.

Tommy

SoBeDude

02-17-2004, 12:18 PM

Hi Tommy,

Your 'blabs' are always welcome and appreciated.

And I do agree with what you're saying.

But I'm concerned with how we make the analysis. Now if I'm judging your ability to hit the rock or I'm putting an opponent on a hand, my judgement, not my math is the critical element.

So for a guy like me who is very much still learning the art of the read, I look at which is the lessor of two evils.

I'd rather make a bad river call than a bad river fold.

-Scott

Clarkmeister

02-17-2004, 01:11 PM

I don't think anyone is good enough to reliably tell the difference between a 6% chance of being good and a 4% chance of being good.

SA125

02-17-2004, 01:40 PM

"I'd rather make a bad river call than a bad river fold."

I agree. One lost bet vs. one lost pot. Crying call time.

Good post Scott. Good responses.

Zeno

02-17-2004, 02:43 PM

[ QUOTE ]
There is really only one hand I can put him on based on the way he played, he has to have KJ.

[/ QUOTE ]

He has to have KJ. Your art of reading cards is obviously very good. You just did not act on or have the proper confidence in your 'art'. That's the point. It is not math anymore at this point. No 4, 5, 10 % or 17 to 1 or 25 to 1 etc. You KNOW (it's 100%), therefore those two fives should have sailed into the muck. No need to call the bet - you do not need to see the KJ face up on the table. You have already seen the hand in your mind. So it is not the lesser of two evils, it is a compounded 'evil'. You paid an additional $16 for information that you already knew - and that is Bad Poker.

-Zeno

SoBeDude

02-17-2004, 02:52 PM

I don't think anyone can be that sure.

I'll say KJ is the most likely hand. Might he also play AA or QTs the same way? Or possibly even AK?

-Scott

Zeno

02-17-2004, 03:10 PM

But you can be 100% confident in a read of an opponent’s hand. In which case it is a waste of money and bad poker to then call.

Too often, in my opinion, good players and good card readers make 'crying calls' when unnecessary. Perhaps lack of confidence has something to do with this and also that doubt does ever gnaw at the mind. It is a powerful drug and lure and has many in its grip.

-Zeno

Zeno

02-17-2004, 03:20 PM

Scott,

We will just have to disagree on this. In my opinion, there are times that you can be 100% sure of a read on a particular player and his/her hand. It may or may not be that common depending on type of game, level of skill, and playing experience but it does happen. Everyone that posts here can attest to that fact. In addition, it is one of the reasons you posted the hand -You KNEW your call was Wrong - even if just subconsiously. (IMO)

You have to learn to have the confidence in your read to act on it and avoid this 'crying call'.

Others will, I am sure disagree, but that is my position and opinion.

[ QUOTE ]
Might he also play AA or QTs the same way? Or possibly even AK?

[/ QUOTE ]

Gnaw, gnaw, gnaw, until the rope breaks.

-Zeno

Garland

02-17-2004, 04:01 PM

I think there's more than the "17:1" odds we're calling for.

Quite simply we have a hand that has at least a chance at winning, and maybe not quite the odds we're looking for. But a big external reason we make this call is if others see me fold the river here, people will be taking more shots at me when I have a less than superiur hand. There's an old saying: "don't be labeled a folder".

Garland

Tommy Angelo

02-17-2004, 05:01 PM

"I don't think anyone is good enough to reliably tell the difference between a 6% chance of being good and a 4% chance of being good."

Hoo boy. Your remark means I have failed completely at saying whatever it was I was saying. Give me one more chance?

I pick up a rock and point to a target and offer you a $1 bet, even money, on one toss. You look over the situation, and let's say you determine, somehow, someway, that I'll miss the target more often than not. So you decide to make the money play and we bet the dollar.

It matters not if I hit the rock, right? That has no effect on the correctness of your decision. What matters is that you made a determination, based on expectations and odds, of what you thought was the best of options, and you were prepared to bet on it.

On the 17-1 pocket fives hand, a similar determination was made, namely, that the pot was not laying proper odds to call on the river. It does not matter if the determination was correct, or even if it was made based on the right parameters. What matters is that a thoughtful determination was made by a reasonable player thinking reasonably.

I wind up to throw the rock. You like it. You have brought your experience to this moment, knowing when to take a wager, when to decline, you cunning dog you. And then something bizzare and unthinkable happens. Just as I'm about to throw, you say STOP! The bet is off! I changed my mind! I want to switch sides!

And just like that, you make another crying call on the river. It's okay, everyone says. You had to.

Tommy

ActionBob

02-17-2004, 10:58 PM

What matters is that a thoughtful determination was made by a reasonable player thinking reasonably.

I think what Clark is saying (if not then I'll say it) is no "reasonable player thinking reasonably" can make this read with 95% certainty. Anyone who can shouldn't be posting questions on some silly mid limit holdem message board as their skills are obviously be far beyond the rest of us.

-ActionBob

ActionBob

02-17-2004, 11:21 PM

It does not matter why or how you came to your conclusion that my chances of hitting the rock were greater or less than 50%. Dozens of factors could weigh in. Or just one. Doesn't matter. If you, or anyone, are unwilling to bet on your own ability to determine when a bet is a good bet, then you are by my definition a bad gambler.

I certainly understand your point here, but say this same person raises preflop with 72. Now he also claims he wins 50% of his 72 hands. Is his raise good? In his mind its a "rational" decision, but don't you think you'd rather help him think better than tell him "as long as your thinking is in your mind rational then your decision is ok?"

-ActionBob

crash

02-18-2004, 02:08 AM

Maybe I'm dense, but I don't see your point either.

"You look over the situation, and let's say you determine, somehow, someway, that I'll miss the target more often than not."

"It matters not if I hit the rock, right? That has no effect on the correctness of your decision."

The second quote is misleading. How often he hits the rock does affect the correctness of my decision. How often he bluffs (or doesn't have me beat) in this situation affects the correctness of my river call. All you seem to be saying is "if he really would not bluff here one out of 17 times here, I shouldn't call". The original poster was really asking "will he have me beat here 16 times out of 17?"

In other words, you can't just assume "a thoughtful determination was made by a reasonable player thinking reasonably". The poster was asking "was my conclusion that I was beat 16+ times out of 17 rational/correct?"

and since, as was pointed out, it's hard to tell 4% from 6% in this case, I would call. I think most players, even the one he described, might bet the river one out of 17 times without having me beat.

Sredni Vashtar

02-18-2004, 02:33 AM

"Maybe I'm dense, but I don't see your point either"

Not dense, it's just that Tommy doesn't live by the same gravitational constants that many of us are governed by.

He's just saying that in the land of "Know", if you don't have the odds you fold. If you do, you call.

In the Land of "Don't Know", that's where the teardrops start.

"The second quote is misleading. How often he hits the rock does affect the correctness of my decision. How often he bluffs (or doesn't have me beat) in this situation affects the correctness of my river call. All you seem to be saying is "if he really would not bluff here one out of 17 times here, I shouldn't call". The original poster was really asking "will he have me beat here 16 times out of 17?"

In the land of "Know" if you KNOW that you will lose more than 1 and 17, but this just happens to be that one time you would have won, that doesnt' matter, does it?

The knowing after the fact that he WAS bluffing this time, may throw into question the correctness of the earlier evaluation, and changes what future assesments might be, but it doesn't change that you made a decision founded on the best evidence at the time.

SV.

SoBeDude

02-18-2004, 11:59 AM

Thanks to all who've responded. When I posted this, I really wasn't sure what is the right river play.

I really felt in my heart that my opponent had KJ. Given that, my call was bad.

But I've also been 3bet on the turn, and won the hand with king high before too.

So lets look at the math of 2 scenarios of this situation.

We know that if I think my opponent will have a hand OTHER than KJ 5.8% of the time, then calling or folding is irrelevant. Either play is 0 EV.

Now lets look if I'm wrong both ways and I call both times.

Lets say he'll have something else only 1 time in 19.

So that means 18 times I lose 1 BB, and 1 time I win 17 BB.
That comes to 0.055 Big Bets (88 cents) lost per call.

So now lets look at the other side of the equation: Lets say he has somthing else 1 time in 17. Thus 16 times I lose 1 BB, and 1 time I win 17 BBs. That comes to 0.0625 Big bets ($1.25) profit per call.

Until I become really really confident in my reads, I think a call here is important. And making a read when heads up and holding a full house, is probably not my biggest leak anyway.

-Scott

MarkD

02-18-2004, 12:15 PM

Ok, I'm pretty sure I know what Tommy's saying so I'll help out.

[ QUOTE ]
"It matters not if I hit the rock, right? That has no effect on the correctness of your decision."

The second quote is misleading.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not if you put it in context of the entire post. Tommy's saying it doesn't matter if he hits or misses the rock this specific throw. To illustrate let's say a friend gives you 2-1 that on a coin toss it will come up tails. He lets you pick the coin so you take the bet since you've decided it's a fair coin and you are getting correct odds. The bet is correct, it doesn't matter if on that specific toss the coin comes up tails. You made a decision that the bet was correct.

That's what Tommy is saying. The results don't matter. If you make a decision that you are fully confident in then you should act on it, if you don't then you are doing yourself a disservice.

Having said all that, I think I'm going to agree with the majority here in that I'm not often confident enough in my reads to say with certainty what my opponent has and fold in monster pots like this one. I am working on it though - my reads I mean.

*** Also, if I misinterpreted what Tommy was saying I would like to apologize in advance.

crash

02-18-2004, 02:56 PM

"Tommy's saying it doesn't matter if he hits or misses the rock this specific throw."

I agree with this completely. That's why I said 'It matters how often he hits the rock', not 'It matters if he hits the rock this particular time'.

Let's put it this way: what is TA's point?

It can't be 'if the guy will actually have me beat 16+ times out of 17 here, then my call is mathematically incorrect'. This can't be what he means, b/c this point is beyond dispute.

It can't be 'if I think he will have me beat 16+ times out of 17, I shouldn't call'. (this is sorta how he put it in an earlier post). What if I think this for bad reasons?

So he then says 'if, by a rational thought process, I conclude he has me beat 16+ times out of 17, I shouldn't call'. (this is sorta what you say when you say if you're fully confident then you should act on it). But this begs the question. The original question was (in essence) "how rational was my thought process when I concluded I would be beat 16+ times out of 17?" (or "how great is my confidence that I am beat etc.?")

And since when I'm trying to answer that question, I can't tell in my own mind how rational or confident I'm being (4% vs. 6%?), I call.

I think we probably agree on this, I just thought some statements were misleading.

Crash--avowed nit and nitpicker.

Tommy Angelo

02-18-2004, 03:21 PM

"The original question was (in essence) "how rational was my thought process when I concluded I would be beat 16+ times out of 17?"

The initial post had nothing at all about the thought process or its rationality, and the only question was "So can I fold to this river bet?"

But none of that affects the answer, which is still yes.

Tommy

astroglide

02-18-2004, 03:29 PM

i think this is getting too complex. you should never fold this river. why? you asked the question. that certainly indicates greater than 6% doubt. if a fold was in order, you would have thought (with *BARELY* a trace of doubt), 'damnit! i should have folded'

MarkD

02-18-2004, 03:47 PM

My interpretation of Tommy's point is this:

All we have as gamblers is our ability to make decisions and act on them. Make use of your reads - if you don't, then what's the point of making them?

SobeDude stated in his original post that his opponent HAD to have exactly KJ, that he could have no other hand. Tommy is saying that if this is the case, if that was his read, then he was wrong to call. Now, if SobeDude had said, "I think there was a 94% chance that he had KJ, but I had about 6% of uncertainty," then I doubt Tommy would have said what he did.

Sobe stated his confidence level in his read in the initial post, Tommy is saying that he should have acted on it because as gambler's all we have is our ability to analyze and make decisions.

crash

02-18-2004, 07:43 PM

I read "can I fold this river bet" as "should I fold"?, which brings into play how rational my read was etc.

And I agree that in general, we have to trust our reads and act on them. But there have been times when I thought there was (almost?) zero chance the river bettor was bluffing (maybe my thought process was irrational?), but I call and win. I guess when the pot gets big enough I don't trust my read. I'm willing to accept this as a flaw in my game and move on. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

mikelow

02-18-2004, 07:46 PM

I may be late on this one, but never fold here. Maybe he has KJ, but you have at least a 10% chance of winning this pot. I never fold a flopped set unless I'm absolutely sure I'm beat, which is (almost) never.

See the "flop a set, fold a set" post by mike l.

DanZ

02-18-2004, 10:03 PM

he can also have 4 jacks, can't he? Yes, you are toast on the river against almost every player in the universe.

Dan Z.

rigoletto

02-19-2004, 10:32 AM

Tommy is absolutely right. It's a simple decision based on odds. The size of the pot does however affect the reactions. Most answers in this thread seems to say: 'I'm likely beaten more than 1 out of 17 times, but I can't be sure so I call anyway' but nobody is saying: 'Hmm... I'm likely ahead a little more than 1 out of 17 times but I can't be sure so I'll fold anyway'! Both decisions has the same -EV in the long run.

Oh, and Scott: bet the flop - how many times do I have to tell you /images/graemlins/mad.gif