total unfluffableness
 

One of the things that has happened a couple times in my hold'em life after I make a retarded fold is that suddenly my cards appear face up on the table anyway. It happened again this morning. $20-40 at LC. UTG raised, next player called, next player folded, I reraised with AK, all folded around to the BB who called, UTG capped it, the coldcaller called, I called, the BB called, and four of us saw the flop which was A-A-6 with two diamonds.

It went check check check to me and I bet. BB called, UTG check-raised, other guy folded, I made it three bets, BB called, and UTG called. Threeway now. The turn was a blank. The BB checked, UTG checked, I bet, BB called, UTG checkraised, I made it three bets, BB called two cold, and UTG folded KK face up. Headsup now.

The river was a diamond and the BB bet out. Profile on this guy is, he got there.

The timing of what happened next was fast and confusing. The dealer had not scooped in the turn bets yet when the BB bet the river. After he bet, the BB had eight stacks of four chips each in front of him, kind of messy. My turn bets were in stacks of four and still in front of me when I bullet-folded on the river from the six seat. There was a gap between my initial-turn-bet chips and my make-it-three-bets chips that I aimed between. It was an easy shot, one that I rarely miss, but my cards did not quite make it through the first columns, which meant that my cards, though obviously folded, had not travelled all that far toward the dealer.

UTG turned over a flush. He thought, or maybe he had just assumed, that I had called his river bet. And that might be one of the reasons why the guy in the one seat also thought I had called, which would explain why he spun an index finger around horizontally and said quietly in the dealer's ear, "Let's see that hand."

The dealer picked up my hand to do the customary tap-the-muck-to-kill-it move, which gave me time to stop him, but I didn't. The dealer turned my hand over in the middle of the table, and two players were ready to jump on him and did, saying hey, Tommy did not even call on the river, so why did you turn his hand over? Which meant that both of those players could have stopped the dealer too, but didn't.

When the dealer understood the mistake, he looked at me and our eyes met. My read was that he felt really scared or really bad or both. I picked up my ace-king and turned it face down and pushed it away from me and said to the dealer mendingly, "Let's do it over and this time pretend I folded." Which is exactly what he did, right after he exhaled.


Tommy

Re: total unfluffableness
 

First, nice story. Perhaps a second calling as a writer?

Second, nice attitude. The dealer obviously screwed up, but surely it was an honest mistake. Is throwing a tantrum going to get your money back? Nope.

Third, nice read. Getting better than 20:1, I make the crying call. Was there really no chance of AQ or a desperation bluff?!

Fourth, perhaps I'm missing something, but why didn't you stop the dealer from turning your cards over?

Re: total unfluffableness
 

[ QUOTE ]
First, nice story. Perhaps a second calling as a writer?

[/ QUOTE ]

maybe you could sing and play the guitar a little, too.

Re: total unfluffableness
 

Good man.

I would also have politely told the dealer it's a good idea to scoop up all the bets before dealing the next card.

Re: total unfluffableness
 

[ QUOTE ]
The river was a diamond and the BB bet out. Profile on this guy is, he got there.

[/ QUOTE ]

"...he got there"

But maybe, just maybe, once in a while he was sort of already there with ace queen and he's virtually certain you have big slick, after all sixes full doesn't make sense, but he is going to chase and hope and why not, the pot is big, three outs to win and six outs to tie and he's watched two kings disappear and now he's even more hopeful and maybe the river will scare that fascinating, charismatic and a tad eccentric/goofy tight-aggressive guy in the catbird seat lay down for one last bet before so why not bet the river and see what happens...

So you bullet folded. He gains if you lay down incorrectly one time in twenty-two. You bullet folded!?!?!

Am I missing something here? I've never bullet folded. And I've never been so confident in a read that I have laid down a big hand for one bet head up when a scare card comes in a pot I couldn't jump over with a trampoline.

Maybe I need to work on this. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/smirk.gif[/img]

Luv,

Rick

Re: total unfluffableness
 

I must agree with Rick, even if its a crying call, the money goes in. Anyway, now that the whole world knows you are capable of these folds, you're gonna have to start making these calls.

Re: total unfluffableness
 

'total unfluffableness'

Many years ago when feather pillows were still the norm and came in the standard blue/gray pinstripe pattern, I had one, in fact two. Feathers would come out the seams and out the corners and I would pull them out to pass the time while trying to slumber or when planning some attack or stratagem to get back at my older brother. The pillows would easily flatten out and you had to repeatedly fluff them up for comfort. At some point in its life each pillow simply gave out and remained perpetually flat - when it reached the nadir of 'total unfluffableness'. Strange how the memory works as the title of your post brings all this flooding back.

A Fine and enjoyable post about poker – Somehow I’m on pillows, but it feels comfortable and in some way appropriate.

-Zeno

Re: total unfluffableness
 

"said to the dealer mendingly, "Let's do it over and this time pretend I folded."

gay. i like it better when you keep quiet about hands and stuff no matter what.

Re: total unfluffableness
 

"He gains if you lay down incorrectly one time in twenty-two."

oh puhleeze! you think tommy is mislaying 22 times here? me yes. you yes. him? no way rick. if that guy could play every river for me from here to eternity, or at least for the next year or two, id be a kazillionaire. he's got that street and these sorts of reads wired.

Re: total unfluffableness
 

Good Lord, I hate the IWTSTH rule. I just don't understand why it's still in practice.

Re: total unfluffableness
 

This wasn't that, this was I thought he called so I have to table his hand to see if he won the pot (ITHCSIHTTHHTSIHWTP).

Re: total unfluffableness
 

Hi Rick,

The reason I said "he got there" was to get that part of the story over with as fast as possible.

"But maybe, just maybe, once in a while he was sort of already ..."

Rick. When he bet, I had a loser. There could not possibly be any other way. That's why I didn't elaborate even a little bit. But since you brought it up ...

There were layers of reliable cross-referenced tells and gestures and statements and patterns, spanning years in general, hours that day, and four betting rounds that hand. The way he called two cold preflop, and then the cap, he could not have had a big ace. He wouldn't even slow down, calling two cold from the big blind with any ace, let alone a big one. And he almost mucked to my reraise preflop, and after he called, he groaned a little in regret when it got capped. And it was all familiar. FWIW, his actual hand was 9-5. Rick, think of the most unsophisticated open-book player you have ever known. Is it really so impossible to imagine that you could occasionally know what he has?

"You bullet folded?"

The reason I bullet folded was that rivers stretch time. From when the river card hit the table to when it was my turn to act was something like two minutes after warpage.

"And I've never been so confident in a read that I have laid down a big hand for one bet head up when a scare card comes in a pot I couldn't jump over with a trampoline. Maybe I need to work on this.”

Well, forgive my tone, but until you think it is possible for it to be correct to fold when the flush gets there, you won’t.

Tommy

Re: total unfluffableness
 

But Mike, if anyone else made this laydown, we would be all over him on this board.

I am sure Tommy is a great card and situation reader. But the margin of error here is so slim. He should call unless he is nearly 100% sure that he is beat (which I gather he was - I can accept that ). But he also has to be reasonably sure that making this type of laydown will not encourage future bluffs - by this opponent or another who is observing - which Tommy might misread as "he got there".

Rick's point is simply that you don't have to be wrong often to make this fold disastrous. As great a reader as Tommy is, he is still way too fond of fruit plates IMO.

Why does it seem like I am talking about Tommy behind his back...heh

Re: total unfluffableness
 

Read paragraph 4 of Tommy's respons to Rick, the one beginning "There were layers . . . "

I wouldn't worry about Tommy being bluffed out on the river. Sometimes he makes a bullet call. Or a bullet raise. The river runs through him.

Re: total unfluffableness
 

"Rick's point is simply that you don't have to be wrong often to make this fold disastrous."

I still don't get that part. Let's say the pot is offering me 20-1 on a river call, and let's say the opponent will bluff me in this situation one time in 20. If I call every time, I come out even. And if I fold every time, I come out even.

How come everyone says I should call every time, when folding every time nets the same result? And if folding every time nets the same as calling every time, then on a case by case basis, what difference does it make if I fold or call?

Here's another angle:

Can I assume we agree that in order to generate profit from these river situations after thousands of trials, that I must do something other than call every time?

If we agree on that (and we throw out raising as an option), then that means the only possible way to do better than break even in these situations in the long run is to fold at least once.

At this time I'm not saying anything about the reason for picking a particular hand to fold on. I'm just looking for you or anyone to say that without at least one fold, the best we can hope for in these situations is to break even.

And maybe that is in fact the case, as with basic strategy at blackjack, where any variance from the proven strategy (counting aside) is a mistake. The best way to play at non-counting BJ is to be brainless and know what all your plays will be before you even get out of the car. Is calling on the river with a good hand and a big pot as mindless as non-counting blackjack, and should it be? Maybe it should.

But is it so outrageous to think that I could profit from these otherwise break-even river situations, by doing the poker equivalent of counting at blackjack, and vary my play from basic strategy at exactly the right times?


Tommy

Re: total unfluffableness
 

"Let's say the pot is offering me 20-1 on a river call, and let's say the opponent will bluff me in this situation one time in 20. If I call every time, I come out even. And if I fold every time, I come out even."

I believe you meant he will bluff you in this situation one time in 21. Then you break even.

I believe Rick and skp meant that if you believe he will bluff you one time in 21 and they see you bullet folding in big pots they will eventually start bluffing you one time in 20 (or 19) and you may make mistakes because you think they're still bluffing you one time in 21.

I believe they'll think your comparison of when you decide to call or fold (or raise) with varying from basic strategy is not a good analogy. I believe they'll say it's not because the blackjack play is based on objective facts, i.e., how rich or poor is the deck in certain cards, whereas your river decisions have an element of subjectivity to them such that it's tough to discern whether you have a 5% or a 6% chance of winning the pot.

But I believe they're wrong. Varying your bet or tactics from basic strategy is based upon one's assessment of the probability of certain things occurring. Which is exactly what you're doing on the river.

And if any of my "I believe"s are wrong, my apologies to my three friends.

Re: total unfluffableness
 

I still don't get that part. Let's say the pot is offering me 20-1 on a river call, and let's say the opponent will bluff me in this situation one time in 20. If I call every time, I come out even. And if I fold every time, I come out even.

exactly. but now people are going to say "ok but it could be 6% of the time instead of 10% of the time so it's not exactly 20:2" or whatever, but i think facts are facts here and in a brick and mortar game you know when you're beat and it's a good laydown. they have to bluff more than the exact pot is laying or it's just a breakeven play. i think folds like this are impossible to make properly online, but there are infinite other rivers where i feel people are pissing away bets because of an odds mantra. people also don't consider how much money is saved on other folds for people who are "in a folding state of mind".

Re: total unfluffableness
 

I'll comment more later (gotta run to a meeting) but when it is said that "you don't have to be wrong very often to make the fold disastrous", the "wrong" refers to you possibly misassessing your opponent's bluffing proclivity.

Thus, this comment of yours...

[ QUOTE ]
I still don't get that part. Let's say the pot is offering me 20-1 on a river call, and let's say the opponent will bluff me in this situation one time in 20. If I call every time, I come out even. And if I fold every time, I come out even.

How come everyone says I should call every time, when folding every time nets the same result? And if folding every time nets the same as calling every time, then on a case by case basis, what difference does it make if I fold or call?

[/ QUOTE ]

...can't hold water. It assumes as being correct the very thing that you could be wrong about.

You have assumed that the opponent bluffs 1 in 20. If it turns out that it is actually 1 in 30 and you call every time, you would be making a mistake. But if it turns out that it is actually 1 in 10, you would be making a bigger mistake by folding every time.

Thus, in a big pot, the best play is to "not count cards" and "mindlessly call".

One can of course try to play perfect poker by always folding at the right time and always calling at the right time. But in trying to get there, you may unwittingly be shooting yourself in the foot.

Re: total unfluffableness
 

"How come everyone says I should call every time, when folding every time nets the same result?"

because $800 is a lot of money at least in other circles and it will cost you at least that much to clean the vomit off yourself and those around you those times he flashes you an A as he rakes in the pot.

but i still think it was a good laydown because you lose more than 1 in 20 times here.

We\'ve gotten off-track
 

When I first saw the post, I assumed the title was Total Unbluffableness. Only after reading it did I look more carefully and see the actual title.

We have a situation here where, 1) in the middle of a hand, a player exposed his cards; 2a) the dealer did not gather in the bets on the turn and 2b) exposed Tommy's card when he folded to a river bet; and 3) Tommy lost a monster pot when a 3rd suited card came on the river. At Commerce, cards would be thrown, f-bombs exploded, and twenty minutes assigned. We've gotten sidetracked talking about why Tommy should have thrown away forty dollars when he knew he was only getting the silver medal.

It's more important to be unfluffable than to be unbluffable.

Re: total unfluffableness
 

[ QUOTE ]
You have assumed that the opponent bluffs 1 in 20. If it turns out that it is actually 1 in 30 and you call every time, you would be making a mistake. But if it turns out that it is actually 1 in 10, you would be making a bigger mistake by folding every time.

[/ QUOTE ]

It should be very, very easy to distinguish between a player who bluffs one time in 10 from a player who bluffs one time in 30. This is especially true if you play in a California casino because you play so often against the same pool of players.

Re: We\'ve gotten off-track
 

[ QUOTE ]
It's more important to be unfluffable than to be unbluffable.

[/ QUOTE ]

All comes down to who the fluffer is, if you catch my drift, and I think you do.

Re: We\'ve gotten off-track
 

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

Re: We\'ve gotten off-track
 

They got "fluffers" at Lucky Chances now? I'm moving back!
Damn I just furnished this appt with all new furniture...ah hell...leave it!

Re: total unfluffableness
 

Well, I am not sure that it is easy to discern between someone who bluffs 1 in 30 and someone who bluffs 1 in 10. The former has a 3% chance of bluffing while the latter has a 10% chance of bluffing. In actual play, it would be difficult to know that one guy bluffs three times more often than the other. This is because it will just naturally seem that neither bluffs very often. I submit that in most cases, you simply can't tell who is the ten percenter and who is the 3 percenter.

In any event, the 1 in 30 and 1 in 10 were just thrown about as convenient guidelines to help make my point. But let's assume that that you call everytime against a guy who only bluffs 1 in 23 times (when you think he bluffs 1 in 20) and fold everytime against a different guy who bluffs 1 in 18 times (again, when you think he bluffs 1 in 20). The bigger error in the two scenarios is always folding when given 20 to 1 pot odds.

...and there's no way that anyone can distinguish a guy who bluffs 1 in 23 from a guy who bluffs 1 in 18.

Re: total unfluffableness
 

Quick thought. Are the people who always call based soley on the size of the pot the same ones who never raise on the river with a sure loser after sensing weakness?

It seems to me maybe so.

Re: total unfluffableness
 

Your first 3 "I believe"s are correct (at least from my perspective - I also think that Rick will agree).

Your 4th "I believe" is:

[ QUOTE ]
But I believe [skp and Rick are] wrong. Varying your bet or tactics from basic strategy is based upon one's assessment of the probability of certain things occurring. Which is exactly what you're doing on the river.



[/ QUOTE ]

Well, the 4th "I believe" is mistated. You cannot say that I am wrong on that score because I agree with what you go on to say in the rest of the quote. So, we are both right or we are both wrong.

But where we part ways is that I say that it is easy for even Tommy to "misassess the probability of certain things happening".

Re: total unfluffableness
 

[ QUOTE ]
people also don't consider how much money is saved on other folds for people who are "in a folding state of mind".vv

[/ QUOTE ]

This is really true. I doubt you read the SS forum very much but there are SO many players who just make ridiculous calls when it's so obvious they're beat because they just aren't used to folding solid-ish hands in reasonable sized pots.

Re: We\'ve gotten off-track
 

It helps when you have absolute confidence in your ability. This applies both to the fold decision and the reaction to the card and the dealer error. I wish one learn that from a book...

Re: We\'ve gotten off-track
 

I suppose there are books that could help, but probably not poker books. Unless Tommy writes one. I don't think I'm speaking out of school in saying that it's not just confidence in one's abilities, but a realization of the importance, or lack thereof, in poker, in the dealer turning up his cards, in the river card beating him, in relation to other things. That realization comes easier when the other things are in balance. Maybe we should take this to the Psychology Forum.

Re: We\'ve gotten off-track
 

youre right we did get off track. tommy has a policy of not talking during hands after hands before hands about hands. and he did. and that was bad. so let's get on his case about it. boo tommy. boo.

Re: total unfluffableness
 

[ QUOTE ]
...and there's no way that anyone can distinguish a guy who bluffs 1 in 23 from a guy who bluffs 1 in 18.

[/ QUOTE ]

Great point! I believe this is true for the vast majority of players, including Tommy, although he probably gets a lot closer than the rest of us.

Keep in mind that in this hand the pot is offering a little better than 22 to 1. If your opponent is actually bluffing/betting a worse hand only one time out of thirty yet you call you aren't making as big a mistake as if you fold when he is bluffing/betting a worse hand only one time out of sixteen (both numbers are seven off "one time out of twenty three" i.e., the break even number).

The margin of error in this type of situation tends to favor the caller, and given poker is not a game of precision, the caller has the edge in the close decisions on the river.

Anyway, just got home, don't feel well and am in dire need of a nap but i had to catch up on this thread first. I'll try to get back later when I'm fresh (as opposed to fresh out of ideas [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]).

~ Rick

Re: total unfluffableness
 

"and there's no way that anyone can distinguish a guy who bluffs 1 in 23 from a guy who bluffs 1 in 18. "

True, but it's easy to know the difference between a player who bluffs and a player who never bluffs. And Tommy is saying that the book on this guy is that he never bluffs. Not that he'd only bluff 1 in 30, but that he would *never* bluff. What's the point of handreading and watching how people play if you never take advantage of it?

Re: total unfluffableness
 

[ QUOTE ]
It should be very, very easy to distinguish between a player who bluffs one time in 10 from a player who bluffs one time in 30. This is especially true if you play in a California casino because you play so often against the same pool of players.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think it is as easy as you think; however if you observe everyday opponents a bluffing frequency in similar pots of one time in 10 versus one time in 30 should be reasonably achievable. But when it gets to estimating long shots based on observation strange things happen to our thinking and memory and my guess is we all break down a bit.

I reread the hand and I imagined the BB as a typical weak opponent. There is nothing inconsistent with his holding AQ or even Ax suited (nor is his play inconsistent with the flush draw that Tommy put him on). Perhaps his mannerisms during the hand made Tommy believe a flush draw was a near certainty. But typical opponents in California can give off false mannerisms and often bet scare cards on the river, especially when the river card doesn't scare them (Tommy certainly can't have a flush and is unlikely to be full).

Another problem here is that opponents adjust, and the rate of adjustment is difficult to judge. Many of Tommy's posts involve seemingly superhuman laydowns, and I can't help but think that even inferior players slowly adjust, perhaps even act a little to encourage another laydowns in the right spot. This wasn't one but if I were Tommy I'd be careful in the future. Maybe the guy will start reading 2+2 [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img].

~ Rick

Re: total unfluffableness
 

[ QUOTE ]
"Rick's point is simply that you don't have to be wrong often to make this fold disastrous."

I still don't get that part. Let's say the pot is offering me 20-1 on a river call, and let's say the opponent will bluff me in this situation one time in 20. If I call every time, I come out even. And if I fold every time, I come out even.

How come everyone says I should call every time, when folding every time nets the same result? And if folding every time nets the same as calling every time, then on a case by case basis, what difference does it make if I fold or call?

[/ QUOTE ]

Other than the one in 21 mistake noted elsewhere it is break-even. But for you the problem is you don't want to encourage more bluffing in the future, since your default play appears to be to fold or saving bets on the close ones. As opponents start to bluff more your adjustment will probably lag a bit since you base the correct play in large part by observation and a keen memory.

In other words, calling on the close ones protects your future.

Still luv ya,

Rick

Re: total unfluffableness
 

Tommy,

I needed to finish my post nap coffee and start my late night cocktail before tackling this one [img]/images/graemlins/crazy.gif[/img].

You wrote: "There were layers of reliable cross-referenced tells and gestures and statements and patterns, spanning years in general, hours that day, and four betting rounds that hand. The way he called two cold preflop, and then the cap, he could not have had a big ace. He wouldn't even slow down, calling two cold from the big blind with any ace, let alone a big one. And he almost mucked to my reraise preflop, and after he called, he groaned a little in regret when it got capped..

Everything is a bit foggier for me but a weak player playing a weak suited ace would often play the same way with what I would perceive as the same groans. I guess I'm just not as confident in my reads, at least specific reads.

"Rick, think of the most unsophisticated open-book player you have ever known. Is it really so impossible to imagine that you could occasionally know what he has?"

Tommmy, attentiveness, concentration and memory are not my strong points so I rarely get beyond "relatively certain". But even in my foggy mind it has been my observation that with the advent of TV poker bluffing scare cards has become contagious, and these infections have taken hold of even the most predictable players. That's why I believe folding here can be dangerous.

"The reason I bullet folded was that rivers stretch time. From when the river card hit the table to when it was my turn to act was something like two minutes after warpage."

I'm a slow thinker so bullet folding on a big pot is beyond my comprehension, sort of like warp speed before Star Trek. Because I'm a slow thinker I take a few seconds when I make plays postflop. And for strategic reasons (avoiding information leakage), let's say I miss a draw on the river in an unbluffable pot (although even determine what is an unbluffable pot would take some thought). Anyway, I'd take three seconds to fold just so my opponent won't easily know I missed a draw. But I admit my "meta mojo" game is different (and certainly not as stylish) than yours [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img].

I wrote previously: "And I've never been so confident in a read that I have laid down a big hand for one bet head up when a scare card comes in a pot I couldn't jump over with a trampoline. Maybe I need to work on this.

You responded: "Well, forgive my tone, but until you think it is possible for it to be correct to fold when the flush gets there, you won't"

I'll fold on the smaller pots, but I just don't have the strength of will or confidence in my reads to be quite so certain on the big pots. Then again, wait until you get my age, nothing seems quite as certain anymore [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]

And Tommy, there is very little I could imagine you doing or saying that wouldn't be forgiven, especially "tone". [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

~ Rick

Re: total unfluffableness
 

this question isn't "is this guy bluffing more than 22:1?", it's "does this guy have a flush?". averages are good when you don't know exactly what to do or want to make a post-game observation, but the guy isn't doing anything ON AVERAGE right there. he's doing a very specific thing, right at that moment in time.

Re: total unfluffableness
 

The dude cold calls preflop, calls one then two more on both the flop and turn. I'd say about 1 in 1,000+ players stay in with all this action on a pretend flush draw. And 1 in 30 players are good enough to bet something like AQ here against Tommy, because these people are soooo good to actually think, given Tommy's history, they might get a fold. But Tommy said this player is bad. So Tommy couldn't be anything but beat here.

Factor in Tommy's observation of the various mannerisms and the odds against the call get even better.

Is it not that simple?

Re: total unfluffableness
 

Well, the discussion obviously centres on the usual situation and not this specific player per se.

edit: Okay, disregard the above statement.

Besides, I don't think that Tommy said that the guy never bluffs. He said in one of his posts that his mannerisms on this hand indicated very strongly that he was not bluffing. But the read on those mannerisms better have little or no margin of error...that's all I have been saying.

Re: total unfluffableness
 

[ QUOTE ]
I guess I'm just not as confident in my reads, at least specific reads.


[/ QUOTE ]


This hand is a specific fold in time and space against a known player in a poker game. In that respect, it is entirely correct. If you know what your opponent is holding and know you are beat then calling is incorrect. In fact, it is foolish. You are paying for information that you already know and that is bad poker.


[ QUOTE ]
I'll fold on the smaller pots, but I just don't have the strength of will or confidence in my reads to be quite so certain on the big pots. Then again, wait until you get my age, nothing seems quite as certain anymore


[/ QUOTE ]

The size of the pot makes no difference at all. If you know what your opponent has then a fold is correct when you are beat. It is not only correct but more importantly, should be comfortable, as easy and soft has laying your head on an old feather pillow.

I recall a similar post/hand discussion along these same lines sometime ago. Someone called a bet when they knew they were beat (by a full house, I think). All the odds etc were spilled out and only a few people (including Mr. Angelo) said a fold was the correct play. Tommy ended up explaining it all by tossing rocks into the ocean, I believe. But perhaps my memory is a bit off. I entered in to simply state that there are times when you can be 100% certain and that too may ‘crying calls’ are made by players. IMO.

-Zeno