Poker concept: efficient fold

Nate tha' Great · #1 01-18-2005, 06:33 AM

I introduced the term "efficient fold" in a post on Small Stakes and I think that it is useful, so let me explain myself.

I've been dabbling in backgammon lately and one of the key aspects of that game is the doubling cube. At any point before your roll, you may pick up the doubling cube and turn it. Your opponent then has the decision of whether to play the game out for double stakes, or to forefit at single stakes. If he elects to take the cube, he retains the right to redouble (playing the game for quadruple stakes) if his position changes favorably.

There is a little bit more to it than this, but the idea is to double when the opponent is indifferent between passing (decling the cube) and taking (accepting the cube). That is, your opponent does not gain equity regardless of his decision. This is called an "efficient double", and it generally occurs when the opponent's chances of winning the game are around 25 percent. Doubling when your opponents' winning chances are much greater than this is risky because having access to the cube is valuable and backgammon positions are volatile. Doubling when your opponents' winning chances are very small is also poor because it usually means that you failed to double at a time when you could have picked up more equity from having done so (your opponent gives up a 25 percent chance of winning the game as opposed to say a 10 percent chance), and because your opponent may be happy to forefit the game for single stakes rather than risk being gammoned (two point loss) or backgammoned (three point loss). These are inefficient doubles.

There is an obvious parallel in poker. Suppose that your opponent has a 1 in 10 chance of drawing out to beat you on the next card, and you raise, facing him with a call at 1:9 odds. He will lose one chip nine times, and win nine chips one time, so he is indifferent between calling and folding. Reversing the backgammon nomenclature and considering things from your opponent's perspective, we'd call this an inefficient fold. Your opponent gives up something whatever he does.

An efficient fold, conversely, occurs when your opponent gives up very little equity by folding. An easy example is when you have a set, and your opponent bets into you on the river when a third flush card comes. Even if you suspect that your opponent is bluffing, you should not raise, because his folding decision is efficient. He either has a very strong hand and will 3-bet you (allowing you to make an efficient fold), or a very weak hand and will throw it away without giving much of anything up (from his perspective, there may be a very small chance that you're raising with another missed draw, which has less showdown value than his, but he's usually not going to be much worried about this).

This is not a new concept at all - in fact it is staight out of Theory of Poker. But I think it's a potentially helpful term. One of the main goals in poker is to face your opponent with bets that force him to make an inefficent folding decision. Another goal, which is not as well understood but may be almost as important, is to avoid making bets that will force you to make an inefficient fold.

Evan · #2 01-18-2005, 06:47 AM

Good post Nate. That last sentence is a crucial one that most people don't understand.

EDIT: Playing in shorthaned games really exploited this error for me. Not doing this is one of the best lessons those games have taught me.

toss · #3 01-18-2005, 07:52 AM

Very nice post. It'll take me awhile to fully realize the value of this post. Let me randomly throw up some thoughts about shorthanded play.

In the shothanded portion of HPAP its says to call the flop with your marginal hands against a player who will raise with anything. Now I have a better understand of why you should simply call the flop instead of trying to semi-bluff raise.

Popinjay · #4 01-18-2005, 10:15 AM

Can I have your brain?

theBruiser500 · #5 01-19-2005, 01:27 AM

[ QUOTE ]

There is an obvious parallel in poker. Suppose that your opponent has a 1 in 10 chance of drawing out to beat you on the next card, and you raise, facing him with a call at 1:9 odds. He will lose one chip nine times, and win nine chips one time, so he is indifferent between calling and folding. Reversing the backgammon nomenclature and considering things from your opponent's perspective, we'd call this an inefficient fold. Your opponent gives up something whatever he does.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't understand this, how is the opponent giving something up here? It doesn't matter what he does either way to him or to you.

Justin A · #6 01-19-2005, 01:47 AM

[ QUOTE ]
I don't understand this, how is the opponent giving something up here? It doesn't matter what he does either way to him or to you.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with Bruiser, I can see how this would work in Backgammon, but in poker his decision makes no difference. Please let me know if I'm missing something.

Justin A

Richard Berg · #7 01-19-2005, 02:27 AM

Nice post.

[ QUOTE ]
Suppose that your opponent has a 1 in 10 chance of drawing out to beat you on the next card, and you raise, facing him with a call at 1:9 odds. He will lose one chip nine times, and win nine chips one time, so he is indifferent between calling and folding. Reversing the backgammon nomenclature and considering things from your opponent's perspective, we'd call this an inefficient fold. Your opponent gives up something whatever he does.

[/ QUOTE ]
Can you clarify this? Are you talking about implied odds? Without them, the EV of both actions is 0.

One could say that he is forfeiting a nontrivial amount of pot equity (10% of a 10-bet pot), but that's a misleading way to look at the decision IMO.

bicyclekick · #8 01-19-2005, 02:41 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

There is an obvious parallel in poker. Suppose that your opponent has a 1 in 10 chance of drawing out to beat you on the next card, and you raise, facing him with a call at 1:9 odds. He will lose one chip nine times, and win nine chips one time, so he is indifferent between calling and folding. Reversing the backgammon nomenclature and considering things from your opponent's perspective, we'd call this an inefficient fold. Your opponent gives up something whatever he does.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't understand this, how is the opponent giving something up here? It doesn't matter what he does either way to him or to you.

[/ QUOTE ]

And here i thought I was retarded. Maybe I am. I don't quite get it either. Maybe I have to read it a couple more times.

LivingLegend58 · #9 01-19-2005, 03:27 AM

Good post.

bicyclekick · #10 01-19-2005, 03:32 AM

Ahh, I did just need to read it one more time. I get it now. You want to prevent him from situations where he gains. If he's just breaking even on all of his decisions he's not gaining anything...He's not losing anything either because of his river bet because he can fold efficiently like you said.

Got it.