[Benman]

[ QUOTE ]
no, they're not and it isn't close...You can understand that right?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, I can understand your argument but I think it's incorrect.

My rule is based on the fact that, whether I have the ability to fold to a 3bet or not, it's never very -ev (for the final call alone, considered in isolation) to simply always call, given high enough odds (my cutoff is about 8 - 1).

Your critism of me assumes that I'm conceding that my automatic river call is sometimes a huge mistake, ev-wise. If that were the case, then yes, I'd simply be stupid and if I was to have any merit as a human I'd have to go back and re-think my value betting from an earlier street to compensate for this big leak. But I don't concede that a river call at better than 8 to 1 is EVER seriously minus EV. I know that if this assumption is correct, then my point I made earier about not having to consider the two in tandem is correct.

I'm aware that TOP says something (I'm at work and don't have it in front of me) about limiting river value bets to times when you are 55% favorite to take into account getting raised and thus, presumabely, having to give it up, therefore incurring an occasional -1 bet vs. 0 for just checking. But I don't give it up because I think my river call is positive ev since I apply my rule only at long enough odds that I believe that to be the case.

But, I fully expect that you, and many others, will disagree that a river call is always neutral or better in terms of ev at the odds I require. Here's the way I think about it--the more and more improbable the success a particular river call seems to be, the more incentive someone has to bluff. There are some situations where it's "impossible" that I have the best hand, but as long as I have literally more than the bottom two unpaired cards you have to concede that a call is positive ev at some set of odds, right? What if I restated my rule to say 100 to 1. Are than any situations, other than holding bottom two upaired cards, where the possibility of a bluff or a newbie misclick doesn't justify a call?

So, I'm prepared to accept criticism of my rule being triggered at 8 to 1. Otherwise I think you're criticism of me is incorrect as it's based on an incorrect assumption of how I view the strenght of my hand even after I make the crying call.