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..