[Josh W]

[ QUOTE ]
Allow me to bump up what I thought was a very interesting thread with a quick question.

I agree the decision is extremely close. +EV or -EV I think has to be based on the assumption of # times he'll chop and % that UTG will be bluffing into three opponents. Josh was there to make the assessment, we weren't who are we to judge that.

I guess I have two questions:

1) It sounds like you're leaning more toward it being EV neutral than -EV at this point. Is that a correct assessment, or do you feel it's a -EV call?

2) If you feel it's EV neutral, care to walk us through the decision to fold rather than call? This seems to be a variance issue, but on EV neutral marginal river calls, I tend to make the calls. Probably mostly for the mental factor...makes me feel good to win a huge pot and I get really pissed if I folded the best hand in a massive pot, whereas I'm not bothered at all if I throw away one bet to see if I'm best with a marginal holding. I'd love your insight into this...

- C -

[/ QUOTE ]

I can't write much now, but don't think I need to.

Even though I'm now claiming that it's pretty close, and the time, I thought it was a fairly easy fold.

Contrary to popular belief, I didn't post this to brag. I posted it to learn. While learning, my stance has changed.

My gut reaction at the time was "easy fold", because I didn't take into account the LAGgy nature of UTG. However, people here have pointed out that his play won't always make sense.

So, yeah, I think it's close. But at the time, I didn't. I thought it was easy to fold, which is why I folded.

Hope that makes sense.

Given how close I think it is now, I may have called if in the same spot again....but I don't think so.

Josh