looking for the muck? can i find it? should i?

mike l. · #1 06-16-2005, 04:23 PM

40-80 commerce. i have 9c7s in the cutoff and ive posted having come back from the restroom too late to buy the button. utg who has been playing snug raises, 3 people cold call, i call one more small bet, button cold calls, sb who has been playing snug calls, bb calls. lots of money lots of players. only pot like this all night.

the flop is 974 all hearts. checked to guy just on my right who bets, i raise, sb cold calls, utg cold calls. guy on my right calls. 4 of us.

turn is 8c. checked to me and i bet, sb pauses and checkraises, utg calls two cold, other guy folds, i call.

the river is As. sb bet, utg immediately calls. overcall or fold? is it close?

highlife · #2 06-16-2005, 04:28 PM

muck, if the river is the 2d i call. so i guess for me its close, the A pushes it over the edge.

theBruiser500 · #3 06-16-2005, 04:35 PM

fold there are a lot of players in the pot. you are getting really good odds to call, but the other guy in there who is raising you isn't thinking "this pot is so big i can try to semibluff him off his hand, he doens't need to fold often for it to be right", he is thinking "this pot is huge, my opponent will call down with anything" and not pull any fast stuff on you. he has you beat fold.

DcifrThs · #4 06-16-2005, 04:36 PM

you can't play the first 3 streets any differently...when you're back on the turn you can fill up even if you're behind and you're getting plenty good ods to call.

so that leaves the river. although it looks like sb has a tiny flush or something like that i think you have to overcall closing the action, pot is quite large at that point and although 2pair is unlikely to win here, i err on the side of calling in these huge pots...although its probably SLIGHTLY negative ev if it is negative at all. if the sb hadn't been playing 'snug' then its probably a lot more positive or at least not negative, but since he's been playing tight, the cold call on flop and turn c'r is a bad sign for 2pair.

in the heat of battle id call as well. but i see what you're saying that its so unlikely you're good that you should be looking for the muck...but since its not the turn (since you can draw out) it leaves only the river...and thats a big ass pot to give up for 1 bet.

a friend of mine has a policy amongst friends that im about to extend to this situation, he said to me once " i have a policy, i dont fold big pots on the river vs. friends for 1 bet. it would be too bothersome psychologically if i were wrong and the cost is minimal, so i call."

similarly, being wrong here would be a big psychological hit for me if i folded for 1 bet closint the action and he had 87 or something like that (but it is hard to find a hand you beat here...)

-Barron

theBruiser500 · #5 06-16-2005, 04:39 PM

dcirfths, i think that is weak, imprecise lazy poker. if you feel you should fold, just fold and stop making up excuses. one bet is $80, that is a lot of money. think of how good it feels to make a good fold, then later you can enjoy 4 dinners that are "free" because of the solid poer you play.

DcifrThs · #6 06-16-2005, 04:46 PM

[ QUOTE ]
dcirfths, i think that is weak, imprecise lazy poker. if you feel you should fold, just fold and stop making up excuses. one bet is $80, that is a lot of money. think of how good it feels to make a good fold, then later you can enjoy 4 dinners that are "free" because of the solid poer you play.

[/ QUOTE ]

sklansky bucks...mmmmmm bellagio omlet w/ lobster...FIVE of them [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] ok i recant. i literally see 1 possible (remotely) hand he beats and thats a worse 2pair...nothin else...nothing at all from somebody playin snug. its a fold, and 5 bellagio classic omlets.

-Barron

theBruiser500 · #7 06-16-2005, 04:48 PM

next time you eat that lobster dcifir, enjoy it and think of me.

Rick Nebiolo · #8 06-17-2005, 02:57 AM

[ QUOTE ]
dcirfths, i think that is weak, imprecise lazy poker. if you feel you should fold, just fold and stop making up excuses. one bet is $80, that is a lot of money. think of how good it feels to make a good fold, then later you can enjoy 4 dinners that are "free" because of the solid poer you play.

[/ QUOTE ]

I disagree. For mike to save $80 his fold would have to be right 100% of the time. My estimate is he is beat at most 97% or 98% of the time. If he is beat this often he saves about $40, enough for only two dinners [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img].

But the pot is big and opponents take risks, especially if they have played with mike and believe he may be raising light. He's getting 20 to 1. Although it looks like SB has the small flush or set and waited a round to narrow the field with a checkraise (figuring mike won't take a free card), he could be making a move given the field narrowed and there is lots of dead money. UTG could have mike beat but could have Ah big kicker.

Whan a player folds in mike's spot the vast majority of the time his fold will be vindicated. But when he is wrong, it is psycologically devestating. I wouldn't blame him for calling.

~ Rick

andyfox · #9 06-17-2005, 11:20 AM

"when he is wrong, it is psycologically devestating."

By "wrong," I assume you mean he would have won the pot. But this does not make the fold truly "wrong" if he would have won (or "right" if he would have lost). Either it's the wrong or right decision based on the best evluation of the situation he can make.

So the correct play is to make the correct play and work on one's psyche so that a correct fold does not result in psychological trauma if it turns out one would have won the pot.

Rick Nebiolo · #10 06-17-2005, 12:58 PM

[ QUOTE ]
"when he is wrong, it is psychologically devastating."

By "wrong," I assume you mean he would have won the pot. But this does not make the fold truly "wrong" if he would have won (or "right" if he would have lost). Either it's the wrong or right decision based on the best evaluation of the situation he can make.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, you should read and understand what I mean, not what I write [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]. Now that it is morning in a somewhat shaken Los Angeles, I'll try again.

Let's pretend Mike could put the problem before a panel of the absolutely best, in fact almost "God-like" group of super-expert poker players. I'd put Sklansky on the panel but my occasional foray into the psychology forum tells me he is an atheist, and perhaps doesn't believe in God-like panels. But I digress. Let's call the panel "Expert Consensus", or EC for short.

Assuming raising is out of the question (surely EC would consider it), Mike is getting 20 to 1 pot odds on his call. If EC indicates that he has one chance in 19 of winning, then he should call. But then EC asks Mike for a point of clarification regarding the habits of the players. Mike confesses his sin of omitting necessary information, and now EC indicates that he has one chance in 22. If he believes in EC, then he should fold.

Sklansky, miffed that he wasn't included in EC, might say "Since it is close don't worry about it, concentrate on more important matters." skp, laughing at EC and Sklansky, points out a better flop play. Our old friend Shrendi (sp?) wonders about meta-game. Tommy Angelo doesn't consider pot odds, tells Mike he is beat, and hopes Mike might treat him and his beloved for dinner with the saved $80.

Belief in EC is perhaps akin to belief in God. Some of us might want proof that EC exists, since the analytical types who *peruse 2+2 don't necessarily have faith. But to get proof it would take about ten thousand samples and this situation would take about a billion lifetimes to duplicate. So I guess we are back to whether we have faith in EC.

I have faith in EC but don't talk to EC directly. EC's word, interpreted by mere humans, probably would indicate it is close. So Sklansky would be right. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[ QUOTE ]
So the correct play is to make the correct play and work on one's psyche so that a correct fold does not result in psychological trauma if it turns out one would have won the pot.

[/ QUOTE ]

Agree. Funny thing is, let's say we believe in the EC described above and EC tells Mike he has a one in ten chance of winning (making it a clear call). If Mike ignores EC and folds, most of the time his fold will be vindicated and he will strengthen his psyche. If he correctly calls, most of the time he loses $80 and blows off treating the Angelo's to dinner. Where does that leave Mike's psyche?

~ Rick

PS Because I heard it discussed on a radio show yesterday, I had to fit in the word "peruse". Think of what it means, and then check out this link. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]