Calling 1 bet on the river and Time weighted EV

[DcifrThs]

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]

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]

[ 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]

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]

that analysis makes perfect sense.

i just want to remove everybody from "calling costs little, folding costs much" frame of mind

Barron

[krishanleong]

[ QUOTE ]


i just want to remove everybody from "calling costs little, folding costs much" frame of mind

[/ QUOTE ]

I blame Ed Miller. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

Great post and totally correct.

Krishan

[Dominic]

[ 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]

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]

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.... [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]

[DpR]

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.