Re: pop quiz
 

[ QUOTE ]

why would you EVER RAISE SOMEONE WHO IS BLUFFING ON THE RIVER when you beat a bluff(but no legitamite hands)???

you might consider a bluff-raise when you think they are bluffing but still have you beat, but that is a very rare spot

[/ QUOTE ]

Well you sortof answered you own question if the're bluffing and you know you can beet them why not raise to maximize your profit? If they call more money for you, if they fold the same as if you had called.

Re: pop quiz
 

You have just revealed a huge leak in your game. If you think someone is bluffing you on the river, the last thing you want to do is raise, as already pointed out.

If you raise:

When you are ahead, your opponent will fold and you gain $0 extra.

When your read is wrong and you are behind, your opponent will either:

a) call, costing you 1 big blind or
b) raise, costing you 1 or 2 big blinds depending on your move (hopefully you'll be folding to a raise, but who knows given your raise?)

There is little chance your raise will fold out a better hand at the micros, somewhere close to 0%.

Re: pop quiz
 

To turn a profit in this situation he could..

1. Make more good calls when his true odds are better than 19:1.

2. Make more good folds when his true odds are worse than 19:1.

Over a large sample, the opportunity for 1 and 2 would be about the same. If OMR had played perfect poker his good calls would be balanced out by his good folds and so his calling frequncy would be the same.

Therefore, he is neither too tight nor too loose -- he just has to make better decisions.


rgb

Meant to reply to OP -- put post in wrong place.

Results
 

The answer I was looking for was: he's too loose.

The point was to show that if you need to win at 5% to justify a call, your true win rate when you call should be much higher. This is because every call you make should have, as a floor, a 5% win rate. You should get plenty of opportunities to call with much better odds than this though, and those calls should drive your winrate up.

If you answered too loose because he should fold if he's exactly 19:1 against then you got the right answer for the wrong reason. I should have made it "just a tiny fraction better than 5%" to make this logic clearly wrong.

If you got the wrong answer because it was unclear that I meant the 5% to refer to his winrate when he calls, and not overall, I apologize for the confusing wording.


thanks,
Eric

Re: Results
 

[ QUOTE ]
The answer I was looking for was: he's too loose.

The point was to show that if you need to win at 5% to justify a call, your true win rate when you call should be much higher. This is because every call you make should have, as a floor, a 5% win rate. You should get plenty of opportunities to call with much better odds than this though, and those calls should drive your winrate up.

If you answered too loose because he should fold if he's exactly 19:1 against then you got the right answer for the wrong reason. I should have made it "just a tiny fraction better than 5%" to make this logic clearly wrong.

If you got the wrong answer because it was unclear that I meant the 5% to refer to his winrate when he calls, and not overall, I apologize for the confusing wording.


thanks,
Eric

[/ QUOTE ]

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

He's breaking exactly even so..

profit from +EV calls = loss from -EV calls

He can up his winrate by :

1. calling more (+EV calls)
2. calling less (-EV calls)

I don't see where looseness or tightness comes into it.

I've probably missed the whole point of your question so just ignore this if you want [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]



rgb

Re: Results
 

[ QUOTE ]
The point was to show that if you need to win at 5% to justify a call, your true win rate when you call should be much higher. This is because every call you make should have, as a floor, a 5% win rate.

[/ QUOTE ]

This has no basis in reality whatsoever and if it were true we could never draw to a 2-outer no mater what.

Now if you're talking about triggering rake which inherently reduces win rate then it's a different story.

Re: pop quiz
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If instead of calling he raised a few times would that bring up his win rate?

[/ QUOTE ]

why would you EVER RAISE SOMEONE WHO IS BLUFFING ON THE RIVER when you beat a bluff(but no legitamite hands)???

you might consider a bluff-raise when you think they are bluffing but still have you beat, but that is a very rare spot

[/ QUOTE ]


SSHE suggests raising a bluffer in order to fold a better hand from a player behind us yet to act as a +EV move.

Re: Results
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This is because every call you make should have, as a floor, a 5% win rate.

[/ QUOTE ]
This has no basis in reality whatsoever and if it were true we could never draw to a 2-outer no mater what.

[/ QUOTE ]

Come on. Do I really have to say in every sentence I make in the thread that I'm talking specifically about the situation in the OP, in which you are calling, can only beat a bluff, and are getting 19:1? Do you typically run around opening random threads and calling the poster a moron without any regard for context?

Between tyler_cracker's "THIS POST SUCKS" and now this guy, I understand why so many good players I know don't ever come here.

-Eric

Re: Results
 

[ QUOTE ]
He's breaking exactly even so..

profit from +EV calls = loss from -EV calls

[/ QUOTE ]


Yeah, that's the point. "Loss from -EV calls" should be 0. You should never make a -EV call, right? If he has lots of -EV calls, it means he's calling too much. If he stops calling in those spots he currently thinks are close, he'll make more money. That is, if he plays tighter in this spot, he'll do better. That's what I was driving at in this total bomb of a thread.

Re: pop quiz
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

why would you EVER RAISE SOMEONE WHO IS BLUFFING ON THE RIVER when you beat a bluff(but no legitamite hands)???

you might consider a bluff-raise when you think they are bluffing but still have you beat, but that is a very rare spot

[/ QUOTE ]

Well you sortof answered you own question if the're bluffing and you know you can beet them why not raise to maximize your profit? If they call more money for you, if they fold the same as if you had called.

[/ QUOTE ]

everytime they call the raise YOU LOSE THE POT! so if you beat a bluff but nothing else, and the odds of them bluffing are at least what you need to breakeven you call. They never call the raise with a BLUFF!

The problem with your thought process is, that they aren't always bluffing, so when you raise they fold every hand you beat, and call or 3bet with hands you lose to, so you minimize your profit by raising when all you beat is a bluff HU on the river

you throw away a BB everytime you raise in a spot like that, like I said its very rare for you to be HU against someone who could be bluffing often, but you can't beat a bluff, that is the spot for a bluff-raise


[ QUOTE ]
SSHE suggests raising a bluffer in order to fold a better hand from a player behind us yet to act as a +EV move.

[/ QUOTE ]

yeah I guess I didn't specify that I was talking about HU river play.