Re: The evolution of the mid-high stakes forum
[ QUOTE ]
You're right and this is a very insightful post. I might disagree with your contention that folding KQ and calling KJ must be wrong. These hands are virtually identical in quality facing a check-raise, so our feelings about whether or not top pair is good at this particular time is much more important than the pip in kicker.
[/ QUOTE ]
I agree with this, but now you are talking about reads and psychology. It's not what's implied by the {fold,call,raise} notation. The way I see it, it says that you should randomize your action after you have taken all information into consideration. But it cannot be correct to use {50,50,0} for KQ and {50,50,0} for KJ, because you could simply improve on this by using {0,100,0} for KQ and {100,0,0} for KJ.
In terms of game theoretic optimal strategies it might not matter if you fold KQ and call KJ because it might not be exploitable (meaning that even if you do this it's never correct for your opponent to check-raise KQ or KJ). But in choosing between two optimal strategies we should of course use the one that has the potential to exploit mistakes (in this case raising with a hand that he should always just call with).
|