total unfluffableness

[Tommy Angelo]

One of the things that has happened a couple times in my hold'em life after I make a retarded fold is that suddenly my cards appear face up on the table anyway. It happened again this morning. $20-40 at LC. UTG raised, next player called, next player folded, I reraised with AK, all folded around to the BB who called, UTG capped it, the coldcaller called, I called, the BB called, and four of us saw the flop which was A-A-6 with two diamonds.

It went check check check to me and I bet. BB called, UTG check-raised, other guy folded, I made it three bets, BB called, and UTG called. Threeway now. The turn was a blank. The BB checked, UTG checked, I bet, BB called, UTG checkraised, I made it three bets, BB called two cold, and UTG folded KK face up. Headsup now.

The river was a diamond and the BB bet out. Profile on this guy is, he got there.

The timing of what happened next was fast and confusing. The dealer had not scooped in the turn bets yet when the BB bet the river. After he bet, the BB had eight stacks of four chips each in front of him, kind of messy. My turn bets were in stacks of four and still in front of me when I bullet-folded on the river from the six seat. There was a gap between my initial-turn-bet chips and my make-it-three-bets chips that I aimed between. It was an easy shot, one that I rarely miss, but my cards did not quite make it through the first columns, which meant that my cards, though obviously folded, had not travelled all that far toward the dealer.

UTG turned over a flush. He thought, or maybe he had just assumed, that I had called his river bet. And that might be one of the reasons why the guy in the one seat also thought I had called, which would explain why he spun an index finger around horizontally and said quietly in the dealer's ear, "Let's see that hand."

The dealer picked up my hand to do the customary tap-the-muck-to-kill-it move, which gave me time to stop him, but I didn't. The dealer turned my hand over in the middle of the table, and two players were ready to jump on him and did, saying hey, Tommy did not even call on the river, so why did you turn his hand over? Which meant that both of those players could have stopped the dealer too, but didn't.

When the dealer understood the mistake, he looked at me and our eyes met. My read was that he felt really scared or really bad or both. I picked up my ace-king and turned it face down and pushed it away from me and said to the dealer mendingly, "Let's do it over and this time pretend I folded." Which is exactly what he did, right after he exhaled.


Tommy

[tipperdog]

First, nice story. Perhaps a second calling as a writer?

Second, nice attitude. The dealer obviously screwed up, but surely it was an honest mistake. Is throwing a tantrum going to get your money back? Nope.

Third, nice read. Getting better than 20:1, I make the crying call. Was there really no chance of AQ or a desperation bluff?!

Fourth, perhaps I'm missing something, but why didn't you stop the dealer from turning your cards over?

[M2d]

[ QUOTE ]
First, nice story. Perhaps a second calling as a writer?

[/ QUOTE ]

maybe you could sing and play the guitar a little, too.

[andyfox]

Good man.

I would also have politely told the dealer it's a good idea to scoop up all the bets before dealing the next card.

[Rick Nebiolo]

[ QUOTE ]
The river was a diamond and the BB bet out. Profile on this guy is, he got there.

[/ QUOTE ]

"...he got there"

But maybe, just maybe, once in a while he was sort of already there with ace queen and he's virtually certain you have big slick, after all sixes full doesn't make sense, but he is going to chase and hope and why not, the pot is big, three outs to win and six outs to tie and he's watched two kings disappear and now he's even more hopeful and maybe the river will scare that fascinating, charismatic and a tad eccentric/goofy tight-aggressive guy in the catbird seat lay down for one last bet before so why not bet the river and see what happens...

So you bullet folded. He gains if you lay down incorrectly one time in twenty-two. You bullet folded!?!?!

Am I missing something here? I've never bullet folded. And I've never been so confident in a read that I have laid down a big hand for one bet head up when a scare card comes in a pot I couldn't jump over with a trampoline.

Maybe I need to work on this. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/smirk.gif[/img]

Luv,

Rick

[mike l.]

"He gains if you lay down incorrectly one time in twenty-two."

oh puhleeze! you think tommy is mislaying 22 times here? me yes. you yes. him? no way rick. if that guy could play every river for me from here to eternity, or at least for the next year or two, id be a kazillionaire. he's got that street and these sorts of reads wired.

[skp]

But Mike, if anyone else made this laydown, we would be all over him on this board.

I am sure Tommy is a great card and situation reader. But the margin of error here is so slim. He should call unless he is nearly 100% sure that he is beat (which I gather he was - I can accept that ). But he also has to be reasonably sure that making this type of laydown will not encourage future bluffs - by this opponent or another who is observing - which Tommy might misread as "he got there".

Rick's point is simply that you don't have to be wrong often to make this fold disastrous. As great a reader as Tommy is, he is still way too fond of fruit plates IMO.

Why does it seem like I am talking about Tommy behind his back...heh

[Tommy Angelo]

"Rick's point is simply that you don't have to be wrong often to make this fold disastrous."

I still don't get that part. Let's say the pot is offering me 20-1 on a river call, and let's say the opponent will bluff me in this situation one time in 20. If I call every time, I come out even. And if I fold every time, I come out even.

How come everyone says I should call every time, when folding every time nets the same result? And if folding every time nets the same as calling every time, then on a case by case basis, what difference does it make if I fold or call?

Here's another angle:

Can I assume we agree that in order to generate profit from these river situations after thousands of trials, that I must do something other than call every time?

If we agree on that (and we throw out raising as an option), then that means the only possible way to do better than break even in these situations in the long run is to fold at least once.

At this time I'm not saying anything about the reason for picking a particular hand to fold on. I'm just looking for you or anyone to say that without at least one fold, the best we can hope for in these situations is to break even.

And maybe that is in fact the case, as with basic strategy at blackjack, where any variance from the proven strategy (counting aside) is a mistake. The best way to play at non-counting BJ is to be brainless and know what all your plays will be before you even get out of the car. Is calling on the river with a good hand and a big pot as mindless as non-counting blackjack, and should it be? Maybe it should.

But is it so outrageous to think that I could profit from these otherwise break-even river situations, by doing the poker equivalent of counting at blackjack, and vary my play from basic strategy at exactly the right times?


Tommy

[andyfox]

"Let's say the pot is offering me 20-1 on a river call, and let's say the opponent will bluff me in this situation one time in 20. If I call every time, I come out even. And if I fold every time, I come out even."

I believe you meant he will bluff you in this situation one time in 21. Then you break even.

I believe Rick and skp meant that if you believe he will bluff you one time in 21 and they see you bullet folding in big pots they will eventually start bluffing you one time in 20 (or 19) and you may make mistakes because you think they're still bluffing you one time in 21.

I believe they'll think your comparison of when you decide to call or fold (or raise) with varying from basic strategy is not a good analogy. I believe they'll say it's not because the blackjack play is based on objective facts, i.e., how rich or poor is the deck in certain cards, whereas your river decisions have an element of subjectivity to them such that it's tough to discern whether you have a 5% or a 6% chance of winning the pot.

But I believe they're wrong. Varying your bet or tactics from basic strategy is based upon one's assessment of the probability of certain things occurring. Which is exactly what you're doing on the river.

And if any of my "I believe"s are wrong, my apologies to my three friends.

[astroglide]

I still don't get that part. Let's say the pot is offering me 20-1 on a river call, and let's say the opponent will bluff me in this situation one time in 20. If I call every time, I come out even. And if I fold every time, I come out even.

exactly. but now people are going to say "ok but it could be 6% of the time instead of 10% of the time so it's not exactly 20:2" or whatever, but i think facts are facts here and in a brick and mortar game you know when you're beat and it's a good laydown. they have to bluff more than the exact pot is laying or it's just a breakeven play. i think folds like this are impossible to make properly online, but there are infinite other rivers where i feel people are pissing away bets because of an odds mantra. people also don't consider how much money is saved on other folds for people who are "in a folding state of mind".