[cartman]

[ QUOTE ]

Of course taking the highest EV action is the best policy but that is beside the point.

[/ QUOTE ]

Although this may seem like an obvious statement, I think it is a debate that we engage in every time we advocate a line that is immediately incorrect mathematically because of metagame reasons. A frequent example of this is the recommendation to peel the flop and fold unimproved on the turn even when this is immediately -EV so that we don't get run over.


[ QUOTE ]
None of what I wrote is about future hands, only the current hand.

[/ QUOTE ]

I wasn't disagreeing with what you wrote. I was just elaborating on what I thought you correctly pointed out later in your post regarding our opponent not being a theory.


[ QUOTE ]

If Villain is bluffing correctly--not excessively, but correctly--then a policy of folding too many hands will cause an immediate EV loss on the current hand.

[/ QUOTE ]

But we can only make decisions as to which line we think has the highest immediate EV on the information available to us at the time. I am sure at the time that you folded your AQ you thought that was the decision with the highest immediate EV. Based on your estimate of the relevant factors at the time, your fold was "correct". If you later learn that he loves to checkraises the flop and bet the turn with weak draws and air, then the next time you were confronted with the same situation you would probably make a "correct" call.

Excepting tilt or some other illogical catalyst, if we are seeking only to maximize immediate EV we will always make what we estimate to be the "correct" decision at the time. It is only later that we may change our assessment of our opponent and understand that if we had only known then what we know now, we would have realized that what we thought was a "correct" decision was probably actually "incorrect".

Cartman