Results-Oriented Thinking (A Malmuth Error)

Check out this link:

http://tinyurl.com/1qx5

[Jim Brier]

I read this on rgp as you did. What Mason says is absolutely correct. What "Mark Glover/Quad Nines" states is also correct. Mason is pointing out that when your opponent is bluffing, you make a big mistake by incorrectly folding on the end. This is true. "Mark Glover/Quad Nines" is also correct in looking at these situations from an EV standpoint. Overall, the decision is a fraction of a bet issue since there will be many times when your opponent will not be bluffing.

Now both parties understand this quite well. But one party is trying to make it look like the other party doesn't understand it.

[BruceZ]

Jim, I think this is an important point that needs to be made, and I had planned to make it myself at some point. It is often stated that a misake that costs you the pot is much worse than one that costs you a bet. This is misleading, and IMO leads many to overemphasize trying to win the pot. A mistake that "costs you the pot" may often really only cost you a fraction of a bet. Mistakes that cost you the whole pot are rare as your decision would have to be wrong 100% of the time.

When your opponent is bluffing, do you also make a big mistake by correctly folding on the end?

If you are results oriented, then the answer is YES.

I think Quad Nine's point is you should judge the quality of your decision by its EV value, not by what later happens. Seems to me that that's a point worth noting.

[budman]

I don't see that there is any mistake in anyone's logic here or that your two positions are antithetical to each other.

Yes, folding a hand for one big bet when there is a decent chance of winning the pot is a very expensive error.

Calling every time when there is a decent chance of winning the pot is not always successful.

However, it does not need to be successful the majority of the time to make the decision to call have a positive expectation.

For the hand in question, he won 7 big bets. After winning that hand, he only needs to win one of the next seven calls to remain positive.

I think.

When your opponent is bluffing, do you also make a big mistake by correctly folding on the end?

If you are results oriented, then the answer is YES."

Yikes, you miss the point of Malmuth's essay! You're talking about 'correctly folding on the end when your opponent is bluffing.' Where did Mason say anything about that? He is talking about what you cost yourself if you incorrectly fold in this spot.

I think Quad Nine's point is you should judge the quality of your decision by its EV value, not by what later happens.

Yes, yes, that's fine, but again QuadNines just misses the point. The point is that you are going to be wrong in your assessments sometimes. Sometimes you will fold on the end when the greatest player in the universe would have realized the chance of a bluff was greater, for example, and that a call would be correct. Or you will call when the universe's greatest player would know you should fold. Now, if you could later go back and identify all of these errors on your part, and you could take back either class of error, thereby getting back all the money it had cost you, which would you take back - the "call when you should fold" errors, or the "fold when you should call" errors? (And for the sake of simplicity, let's say you made an equal number of each.) The former cost you one bet each time. The latter cost you the pot each time.

The moral of the story is that if you must err - and we all must - it is far better to err on the side of calling too much in these kinds of river situations.

Either Jim Brier is right that QuadNines is trying to make it look like Mason has made an error here when he knows full well he hasn't, or QuadNines simply doesn't see the issue clearly. The latter possibility is not unlikely, as he has a history of such unclear thinking. It is difficult, however, for posters to show him his errors because he strings together series of points which are correct in isolation. The problem is that they simply miss the point, just as in this instance. Once "the point" is brought into the equation, it often becomes clear where QuadNines has erred.

[adios]

Jim,

You wrote:

"Mason is pointing out that when your opponent is bluffing, you make a big mistake by incorrectly folding on the end."

and

"Overall, the decision is a fraction of a bet issue since there will be many times when your opponent will not be bluffing."

The first statement QuadNines is calling results oriented thinking. If both these statements are true, then losing a fraction of a bet is big mistake. In all fairness to QuadNines he was pointing out in his post that Mason mentions a threshold where calling becomes profitable. He's pointing out that this is more or less making a decision based on EV. Then later on in the essay he, Mason, states that after his opponent turned over his hand, he had indeed been bluffing so folding would have been a disaster. QuadNines point is, I believe, that you only knew for sure that he was bluffing after the fact and that stating it was a disaster after the fact is results oriented.

We've had a discussion about this situation regarding folding on the river to a bluff ourselves. The only reason I bring it up is that many have more or less pointed out the same thing that QuadNines has here regarding whether or not it is a true disaster. Mason, David, and Ray all say that it is a disaster and in fact Ray tried to initiate a discussion about this. He didn't get any takers. I wish I would have responded then instead of now. Since I respect what Mason, David and Ray say about poker so much I'm trying to be clear on why it is a disaster.

Tom

Me: When your opponent is bluffing, do you also make a big mistake by correctly folding on the end? If you are results oriented, then the answer is YES."

You: Yikes, you miss the point of Malmuth's essay! You're talking about 'correctly folding on the end when your opponent is bluffing.' Where did Mason say anything about that? He is talking about what you cost yourself if you incorrectly fold in this spot.

Me: I know Mason is talking about what happens when you incorrectly fold in this spot. But if you apply his "logic" (that is, results oriented thinking), then folding when your opponent is bluffing is a disaster regardless of whether you correctly or incorrectly fold. Doesn't that tell you something about his "logic"?

You: (And for the sake of simplicity, let's say you made an equal number of each.) The former cost you one bet each time. The latter cost you the pot each time.

Me: If you assume you make an equal number of pot-costing mistakes as you do bet-costing mistakes, then you'd be right. But those kinds of simplistic assumptions get you in trouble at poker. Thinking in EV terms, you look at not only the size of the "mistakes" but also their likely frequency. If you are much more likely to make a bet-costing mistake, then it might well be better to err on the side of folding in these situations.

But if you apply his "logic" (that is, results oriented thinking)...

There are places where results oriented thinking is perfectly valid. And this is one. Be careful not to cling blindly to the view that “results oriented” necessarily always means conceptually flawed.

then folding when your opponent is bluffing is a disaster regardless of whether you correctly or incorrectly fold.

Yes, it is, actually. This is what Sklansky tried to tell you in his brief comment on RGP. You can play correctly in terms of EV, yet still have the result be a “disaster.” I could provide examples, but I’m sure you can think of plenty.

You say, If you are much more likely to make a bet-costing mistake, then it might well be better to err on the side of folding in these situations.

Maybe, if you just about never fold on the end. But that’s not realistic. This may be the heart of the matter. I think for most players the frequency of bet costing errors is not nearly great enough relative to pot costing errors to suggest erring on the side of folding.

It only takes one saved pot to make up for an awful lot of single bets you may have cost yourself in calls when you should have folded. If you instead err on the side of folding, then for every one of those pots you throw away you’re going to have to make an awful lot of correct (perfect information) laydowns to save enough bets to make up for it. That’s not easy to do.

In sum, I think most reasonable players can maximize their EV in these river decisions by thinking about erring on the side of calling.

This is why not only S&M, but others such as Abdul and Izmet have driven this point home for years. Ask Abdul whether he tries to err on the side of folding or the side of calling here. This is part of what Izmet is talking about when he says, “Folding is a disease.”