Thinking about fundamental theorem of poker
 

OK, so we know we want our opponents to make mistakes. And we want those mistakes to be as big as possible, such that we will happily accept the risk of getting sucked out on if our opponent is willing to call a large enough bet.

But when, if ever, is the situation such that we would rather forfeit the opponent making a mistake (because it would be such a small mistake) in exchange for just taking down the pot? In other words (assuming you are sufficiently bankrolled and this is not a tournament situation) is it ever better to just go ahead and take down the pot with a larger bet even if you know that if you make a smaller bet, your opponent will make a tiny little mistake by calling without odds? When, if ever, would you knowingly forfeit a tiny +EV situation in a sufficiently bankrolled ring game? If there is such a situation (and I'm not sure there is), how tiny does the +EV have to be?
I don't think the concept of reverse implied odds really applies here, because for the hypothetical to work I have to know what my opponent has.

Re: Thinking about fundamental theorem of poker
 

+EV is +EV and its always more money than no EV. If your significantly bankrolled, capable of buying right back in and in no way risk averse (a 50/50 coinflip for your whole stack is a neutral decision) than you always want a plus EV situation. If you are facing bankroll constraints or prehaps in a tournament (where sometimes action can be -EV to everyone in the hand because of the value of survival) than that might make sense.

Re: Thinking about fundamental theorem of poker
 

Yeah I mentioned a similar thing in one of the other threads going right now. I think it's all about bankroll. If your bankroll is small enough that you wouldn't feel comfortable buying back in, you want your opponent to fold in situations where they are at a marginal disadvantage. I would think you'd also only play hands where your edge is fairly reasonable.

Re: Thinking about fundamental theorem of poker
 

OK, you sit down to a capped buy-in NL game. There are one or more players with way-deep stacks who are terrible and you want a chance at their money before they go home. You are involved in a hypothetical along the lines described in my original post. The pot is big and winning it would allow you to compete for more of the terribe players' money before they go home.

Now, there's a circumsance where you might bet big, take it down, and forfeit a little +EV.

Esoteric I guess. . . .

Re: Thinking about fundamental theorem of poker
 

since poker is an incomplete information game these razor thin EV things seem almost non-existant, or rather impossible to know at the time, to me. when things are ambiguous in poker often times it's best to just take down the pot if you can

Re: Thinking about fundamental theorem of poker
 

A while ago I came across the following hand...

NL $300, $1/$2 blinds
Villain (well known opponent) is UTG with ~$460. He's an over-aggressive player with loose PF playing and raising standards. He never slowplays big hands PF.
Hero is BB with ~$455 with 7 [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img]7 [img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img]

Pre-flop:
Villain calls, folds to button who calls, SB calls, Hero checks

Flop: Q [img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img]7 [img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img]2 [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img]
SB checks, Hero checks, Villain bets $10, button folds, SB folds, Hero calls

Turn: T [img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img]
Hero checks, Villain bets $30, Hero raises to $90, Villain reraises to $200, Hero moves all in

At this point, I knew for a fact what he was on. There was no question he was on QT...none. I had that strong a read on him. He sat there thinking for a long time about whether or not to call the bet. He said to me "I'm gonna turn my cards up and show them to you."

I could have done the same thing and taken the pot right there. I've got $450 in my stack, and if I take down the pot I'll now how about $675 in my stack and be completely dominating the table.

But why would I do that?

He called and caught a Q on the river to take down the $900+ pot. Do I regret not flipping that hand over and taking the $675?

Not even for one second.

- C -

Re: Thinking about fundamental theorem of poker
 

Everytime your opponent makes an incorrect call (not getting correct odds) you pick up EV. The trick is trying to figure out how much of a mistake you can get them to make.

Re: Thinking about fundamental theorem of poker
 

I think the only time you would want to do this is if you felt your opponent was a better player than you and you wanted to take away the chance that he could make a move on you that you wouldn't be comfortable in calling. Kinda like why new players in tournaments just all-in pre-flop, they don't want to be outplayed past the flop.

Dommer

Re: Thinking about fundamental theorem of poker
 

psuasskisser,

you completely missed the point. you didnt have a slight EV advantage, you had a huge one. of course you wouldnt flip your cards.

Re: Thinking about fundamental theorem of poker
 

If you are really talking about a tiny +EV on one particular hand then there may be reasons to 'just take down' a decent sized pot there and then if you feel that doing that increases for expected outcome for the session as a whole.
You may build your roll up higher above the buy-in level and so take more money off big-stacks later on; similarly building up your stack above buy-in level may mean that all players give your bets more 'respect' (this may or may not be what you want depending on style); or you may just feel more 'in the zone' and play better when you are 'up' for a session.

Having said that. all other things being equal, I would push the tiny edge..

Re: Thinking about fundamental theorem of poker
 

you completely missed the point. you didnt have a slight EV advantage, you had a huge one. of course you wouldnt flip your cards.

First of all, thanks for showing me a new and completely original way to misinterpret my name...brilliant! I've never seen that before!

Secondly, I'm not the one missing the point. The point of my post was, why would I give away expected value that I'm gaining simply to ensure I don't lose? If I do that every time I'm in that situation, I lose money long term.

And as an extention, I won't regret not forgoing the extra value when I lose the pot, cause I know my decisions will - in the long run - work out in my favor.

Last I checked I hadn't done anything to insult you personally, so next time you feel the need to respond to something I say - especially in a thread you haven't even started - check your attitude at the door.

- C -

Re: Thinking about fundamental theorem of poker
 

i misread your name. it was not intentional. no need to be so defensive.

but yes, you do miss the point.

[ QUOTE ]

The point of my post was, why would I give away expected value that I'm gaining simply to ensure I don't lose?

[/ QUOTE ]

in your situation, you have a huge expected value advantage. regardless of bankroll limitations, you will play that hand through every time.

as i understood it, the original post was regarding marginal +EV situations, which yours is surely not. i suspect something like a pair+flush draw vs an overpair on the flop. you might be a slight favorite, but do you want to play the hand through every time to maximize EV if you are on a short roll? maybe you'd want to take it now if you know he will fold.

Re: Thinking about fundamental theorem of poker
 

i misread your name. it was not intentional. no need to be so defensive.

No sweat...I hear that and other names (psuasslicker is popular) a lot. I'm not usually defensive, but it's usually meant to be an insult and I thought you were flaming me for no apparent reason. No harm, no foul.

as i understood it, the original post was regarding marginal +EV situations, which yours is surely not. i suspect something like a pair+flush draw vs an overpair on the flop. you might be a slight favorite, but do you want to play the hand through every time to maximize EV if you are on a short roll? maybe you'd want to take it now if you know he will fold.

I understand the particular situation I posted was more than a marginal +EV situation (I'll argue why it's not as lop-sided as you think in a minute), but the point of it was still that I wouldn't make a -EV decision simply to ensure winning a pot. Caro directly states this in Super System 2, and it's one of the best lines and/or pieces of advice in the book...

You don't get paid to win pots, you get paid to make good decisions.

The situation would be something like this...

You sit down at a NL $1,000 table with a full stack. Folds to you in the CO with Q [img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img]Q [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img], you - for whatever reason - move all in with your hand. Button flips over A [img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img]K [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] and thinks about calling. Do you flip your cards over to take down the pot, or let him call you out?

Now, not a viable example perhaps cause it's a bit unrealistic, but the point is there...marginal +EV situation for you, do you encourage him to fold or let him call? I let him call cause I'm giving away money if I don't.

And FWIW, I don't consider bankroll within these decisions because if bankroll has to be taken into account when making such a decision, then I'm playing over my head. I don't play over my head, so...

------------------------------------------------------
As to why my example isn't as lop-sided as I think you're making it out to be.

If I flip my cards over, I take the hand down right away, 100% of the time. That nets me $675 for the hand.

If I don't flip my cards over, I lose the hand 8.7% of the time, losing the $900 pot. I also take down the $900 pot 91.7% of the time. This nets out to an average profit of $743.40 per hand.

$743.40 - $675 = $68.40 additional profit per hand when I don't flip my cards and let him call. This is actually only a little more than 10% additional profit over the $675 pot I'd take down if I flip my card over.

So, while I'm a huge favorite in the hand, the +EV advantage I have in getting called is actually only about 10.1% additional profit.

- C -