Doyle's take on calling small edges vs folding - Page 5

Lurshy · #41 03-24-2005, 09:21 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Pushing a small edge is the same as calling off a small edge. The difference is that when you push, your edge usually isn't that small because there's probably at least a 10% chance they fold. If you re-raise someone all in with pocket 7s and you know they have AQ, you're not pushing a 55% edge. Your edge is probably significantly more than 55%. If you knew for sure they'd call, then it's no different than calling the chips off.

[/ QUOTE ]

1- I want that 10% chance that they will fold, why give it up. You say you have a greater chance of taking down the pot if you bet out, but that your edge is equal?!

2- It is a game of incomplete information. When someone bets out all-in in front of you, are you more confident your 77 has an edge at all, or less confident then with weaker action before you act.

3- So yes if you knew they were going to call in advance it is no different, but you rarely know for certain if they will call before you bet out, and do you really want the call when you are marginally ahead? I would think taking down the pot when you are marginally ahead helps make up for the times when you go to the end with the marginal ahead hand and lose. Without the chance of taking down the pot the gamble is much less correct.

Is this incorrect thinking?

Lurshy · #42 03-24-2005, 09:31 AM

Too late to edit, but I would add, maybe I like the idea of maximizing the size of the potential edge, and not necessarily the payoff?

Double Eagle · #43 03-24-2005, 12:51 PM

It's important to realize that there are no absolutes. Way ahead / way behind is a situation where your edge is going to come from keeping your opponent in the pot and betting/raising might well be (and usually is)incorrect.

kdotsky · #44 03-24-2005, 02:56 PM

I think in a way you're agreeing with me, and I think what we're both saying is sort of obvious. Of course it is better to be the aggressor, and of course everyone would prefer to be... and of course everyone would like to be in a big +EV situation instead of a marginal one. Pushing the 77 against AQ is higher EV than calling off all your chips against it, and I dont think anyone would dispute that that higher EV play is preferable. The argument at hand is whether the marginal EV plays are worth it, not whether being the agressor is better. It has nothing to do with calling off all of your chips. Maybe someome tries to steal your blind, and you push all in on a re-steal. Maybe with all the math calculated your "edge" is 55% (your hand + folding equity). Is it the right play? Since your edge is the same, it is the exact same as calling all in with 77 against AQ. The question is is it right. As for the answer, I don't think what I've been saying argues for either side. I tend to agree with the whole higher variance is better and chipEV = $EV, but I'm definitely not 100% convinced, and I can see the other side of the argument.