Folding To a Stop N' Go

[The-Matador]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
1. It builds a pot to give you odds on the turn to draw.
2. It might get a weak ace to fold.
3. It might get you a free card on the turn.
4. It allows you to correctly interpret the BBs bet for one small bet. Though it is unressonable to think he is bluffing, it is not flatly impossible. Once the BB pulls the stop and go, however, our Hero can be sure about where he is at.

[/ QUOTE ]
1. This is a logical fallacy.
2. If there's a chance villian will fold a weak A, then this is a valid point. I, however, refuse to give a 3-6 player that much credit w/o having a prior read.
3. Perhaps it might, and that would be nice. Again, though, I think it's unlikely.
4. Gaining information is nice, but the problem is that it doesn't really give you any information. Lots of players love to jam the flop w/ 1 pair + gutshot + backdoor flush. Raising isn't going to get you enough valuable information to be worth much of anything.

I don't think raising is God-awful terrible, but it's definately not the best play.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think that you know what a logical fallacy is, frankly. You've incorrectly used the term. You disagree with my reasoning, but it is not fallacious.

Not giving credit to opponents at 3-6 is a huge moneyloser for many of the more arrogant 2+2 players.

The free card possibility is enormous here. Don't forget he was the PF raiser.

Raising does give you info when combined with the action on the turn. The move is not made in isolation. If you cannot see how it does this, well, I've tried to explain it and failed I suppose.

No one has given any good reasons for calling other than saving 1 SB (which is a terrible reason) and the possibility of being 3 bet (which, as I have stated, doesn't make sense).

Finally, I can't state the point about the turn draw more clearly than I have. You either get it or you refuse to understand it. I don't care either way, but I can tell you that if you refuse to consider the value of raising a draw on an earlier street so that you can be assured of a payoff in the case of a freeze card on a later street ... well that's really your problem and I hope you one day learn to think outside the box.

[The-Matador]

[ QUOTE ]

The reason that many of us are so quick to think this specific idea absurd is because we've discussed it before. It's written about in poker literature, and we've debated it before. The concept of increasing the size of the pot so that you have the odds to draw to later is a logical fallacy.

[/ QUOTE ]

Once again, it is not fallacious. You disagree that the move has value. Since our Hero was not going to play by the book and was going to draw on the turn, it is correct to raise the flop to give him a chance for a free draw or correct odds on the turn when he does draw. If he calls he has 0% chance at a free card and draws incorrectly on the turn.

[gaming_mouse]

[ QUOTE ]
The point is to raise for all of the reasons I listed, and to ensure you are paid if a card (K, Q) freezes up the bettor.

[/ QUOTE ]

Since you don't have less than 50% equity in this pot (in fact you have much less), the bet you put in + the bet your oppo puts in are -EV at this point. Notice I am not arguing against your strategic reasons for a raise now, but the reason above is not a valid one.

[ QUOTE ]
It is an antecedent benefit of the raise that it gives you the odds to draw on the turn,

[/ QUOTE ]

This is the point that is incorrect. You cannot put your own money in as a justification for a later call. Think about an extreme example. Say I was allowed to put in $100, my oppo would match it, but then the betting returned to 3/6. Well, now I have odds to call with just about anything. Does that make this a good strategy?

[ QUOTE ]
because I really don't think you were folding the turn either way.

[/ QUOTE ]
That's b/c I had odds to call the turn.

[ QUOTE ]
The posters here really need to learn to think outside the box, seriously. I see so much dogmatism on these boards.

[/ QUOTE ]

There's really not, and many of the posters you are arguing with are really good and are not mechanical thinkers at all. You've been giving them attitude, and they've been giving you attitude b/c you're new, so it just seems that way.

gm

[The-Matador]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The point is to raise for all of the reasons I listed, and to ensure you are paid if a card (K, Q) freezes up the bettor.

[/ QUOTE ]

Since you don't have less than 50% equity in this pot (in fact you have much less), the bet you put in + the bet your oppo puts in are -EV at this point. Notice I am not arguing against your strategic reasons for a raise now, but the reason above is not a valid one.

[ QUOTE ]
It is an antecedent benefit of the raise that it gives you the odds to draw on the turn,

[/ QUOTE ]

This is the point that is incorrect. You cannot put your own money in as a justification for a later call. Think about an extreme example. Say I was allowed to put in $100, my oppo would match it, but then the betting returned to 3/6. Well, now I have odds to call with just about anything. Does that make this a good strategy?

[ QUOTE ]
because I really don't think you were folding the turn either way.

[/ QUOTE ]
That's b/c I had odds to call the turn.

[ QUOTE ]
The posters here really need to learn to think outside the box, seriously. I see so much dogmatism on these boards.

[/ QUOTE ]

There's really not, and many of the posters you are arguing with are really good and are not mechanical thinkers at all. You've been giving them attitude, and they've been giving you attitude b/c you're new, so it just seems that way.

gm

[/ QUOTE ]

Reasonable people can have strong disagreements without being disagreeable. I don't think I have been giving anyone "attitude" at all. I do think that people who are used to having their opinions accepted on here seem to get very upset when someone disagrees with them, however.

[Ralph Wiggum]

I guess I'm in the minority, but I'm with the Matador on raising the flop. I see these bets made with hands like QJ, KJ, QT, KT made often enough that I can't see myself calling the flop. I think his point on knocking out weaker Aces is also valid.

[bakku]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't think that you know what a logical fallacy is, frankly. You've incorrectly used the term. You disagree with my reasoning, but it is not fallacious.

[/ QUOTE ]

Here's a hypothetical example.

Let's say villain is playing with his cards face up so you know he has you beat for sure. We'll also assume he'll never fold and will play his hand the same way everytime according to what you do. And finally, let's assume scenario 1 always gives you the correct odds to call the turn and scenario 2 never does.

Scenario 1 (Correct odds to call the turn)

Villain bets the flop, you raise, he calls. He bets the turn, you call.

Scenario 2 (Incorrect odds to call the turn)

Villain bets the flop, you call. He bets the turn, you call.

Which scenario is better?

[The Dude]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't think I have been giving anyone "attitude" at all.

[/ QUOTE ]
I don't know that I'd say you're not giving any attitude at all, but it's certainly not out of line for this forum. After all, I give more shi[/i]t to people than I think you do.

Welcome to the forum, BTW.

[Chris Daddy Cool]

[ QUOTE ]
1. It builds a pot to give you odds on the turn to draw.


[/ QUOTE ]

AHAHAHAHAAHAHAHA.

[gaming_mouse]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't think I have been giving anyone "attitude" at all. I do think that people who are used to having their opinions accepted on here seem to get very upset when someone disagrees with them, however.


[/ QUOTE ]

Listen, I think you have made some decent points, and I appreciate them. But from an objective, 3rd person view, it really seems like you've been getting overly defensive. In fairness, some people have been overly mean to you.

Also, it really isn't a matter of people having a problem with you disagreeing with them. Saying that is an easy way out.

[27offsooot]

Some of your more interesting quotes:

"The flop raise put you in a position to get the information you needed to fold to the stop and go on the turn. You didn't *use* this valuable information, but you did *have* it."

OK, so let's use an information raise to fold the turn UI. Gotcha. No odds to continue UI on the turn. Gotcha.

"Let's review the action. A call PF from the BB. Bets out into a raiser and a field of 4 on that kind of board. Calls a raise. Then bets out the turn again. Do you *really* think he is bluffing?"

So wait a second, I just raised someone who obviously isn't bluffing to determine whether or not they're bluffing. Hmmm.

"On the flop, I do not believe that it is at all reasonable to believe that the BB is bluffing into a field of 4 players, one of which includes a PF raiser. That is, frankly, quite ridiculous. You can talk yourself into the flop call all you like, but you are chasing on the flop and the turn, no question about it."

If I'm chasing and I know I'm chasing why would i want to invest one extra sb or possibly two if re-raised.

"Your flop raise told you what you needed to know to fold the river and save yourself one BB for the cost of one extra SB. You had the odds to call the turn only because you raised the flop, as well. Simply calling on the flop leaves you in doubt about what to do on the turn, with a hand that is likely behind, and without odds to draw."

I thought that you said there was no way that he was bluffing on the flop? If he's not bluffing on the flop, then why do I need to raise to know that folding the river is correct? Better question though, if you were re-raised on the flop and then u capped the flop and the two of you also capped the turn, wouldn't you have generated the odds to see a showdown? You'd only have to be right like one time in 20.

Investing extra bets early on when you know you're drawing to make an otherwise un-profitable draw into a profitable one is flat-out awful.

I give some credence to the argument of folding a low ace and the possibility for a free card. But they are very unlikely and not worth the cost.

By the way, how many personas besides the "matador" do you have. Clearly each one of them gave a different opinion in this thread.

I will be the first to defer to other more experienced posters, but you fail to realize that others in this forum know more than you do. I am not saying I am one of them, but bakku, chief, and Michael Davis are.