Calling 1 bet on the river and Time weighted EV

[Kyle]

Mathematiclly you are correct. However since we are people emotions are tied to our thoughts and decisions no matter how hard we try to play like robots. One thing that gets to me personally is folding a winner on the river. This bothers me more than anything else in poker. Even if folding is a slightly better play getting shown a bluff throws me off my game

So I am willing to make a slightly marginal -EV play on real close river decisions in order to maintain my ablitily to make more and better +EV decisions later in the session.

Anyways.... Great Post

[JAA]

[ QUOTE ]
I THINK most posters understand this concept even when they are talking about these river calls.

IMO, the more important concept is our ability to estimate this EV. For this decision usually comes down to a determination of whether we are good 1-10 or even far less. Even if we we in 'comparable' situations like this every day, it is very difficult to cognitively recognize when we are good enough when the probability needs to only be so small. If our odds were 50/50 it would be easier since we could remember from experience that " I am definitely not good here more than not". However, if we win 1 time in ten it very well may seem that we NEVER win. The points is, it is very very difficult to even know if the EV is close.

Now, given we are unsure of our EV we should tend to make the decision that, if we are wrong in our EV estimate, will cost us the least. In these all of nothing scenarios to win the pot, calling is the better play. Add the fact that the more you DON't call, the more correct it becomes to call and the decision to call is even better.

IMO, this growing trend to make folds for 1 bet on the river is caused by player overconfidnece and, unlike some other mistakes, is easily exploitable.

[/ QUOTE ]

You beat me to it DpR, this was exactly my thinking when I read Dcifr's post.

Barron is right in is original post; no one could argue that if you knew a river call was -EV, even slightly, that you should resist being tempted by the pile of chips in the middle and just fold. It is those times when you are unsure whether the call is -.05BB or +.07BB that you should err on the side of calling. At least this is how I have always understood the theory, and I think this is what people are referring to when they whip out the famous "calling only costs you 1BB, folding could cost you the whole pot!1!" adage.

- Jags

[ML4L]

[ QUOTE ]
what this REALLY says is "id rather lose X*1bb now (where 0<=X<=1) than fold and have the possibility of losing the POT now"

[/ QUOTE ]

If this is your point, what does time value of money and the human tendency toward immediate gratification have to do with anything?

ML4L

[flub]

Isn't this really a game theory question?

If a call on the river is 0 EV and you are getting 10-1 odds you need to call 10 times and fold 1 time and they need to bluff 1 time in 11 to both be non-exploitable.

I think that's right anyway. And if it is that means you can't say calling and folding are equal because then they will be able to bluff more and make your 1-9 calls look like 1-10 calls.

If this was the last game you were ever going to play with them you could call or fold with equal results, but otherwise you better call a lot more then you fold.

-f

[phish]

From my experience and observations, the more successful players tend to call more liberally in these situations (when playing holdem at least). Those who agonize and struggle too hard to save that one bet tend not to do as well. (It may be that those who are too nitty on that final call play other streets sub-optimally, but we should always keep in mind that the tendency to try too hard to save that one bet on the end IS an exploitable tendency.)

[DeeJ]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


i just want to remove everybody from "calling costs little, folding costs much" frame of mind

[/ QUOTE ]

I blame Ed Miller. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

Great post and totally correct.

Krishan

[/ QUOTE ]

Well Ed made the big point about folding the winner in a big pot being a big mistake. The flip side of that is that you don't want to be a calling station either. Barron is right to challenge the 'gotta call' mentality on the end. I know if I folded more often on the river when I was convinced I was behind I'd have saved a few bets. What I don't - and can't - know is the mathematical position (did I fold often enough). Every time you fold on the end when you had the winner is a big mistake. I am always pleased when I fire the third barrel and two other players fold and I have crap [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img] because it pays double compared to the 5 other bluffs that failed....

[AceHigh]

[ QUOTE ]
when you have a decision to make on the river, calling one bet vs. folding and you are 100% sure that it is a "close" decision (lets say + or - .05bbs) then the logic of "you should call b/c it only costs one bet whereas if you fold the pot its a huge mistake" simply does not hold.

[/ QUOTE ]

True. But I think we rightfully fear folding too often over calling too often. If we start to fold too often, we encourage our opponents to bluff more and play more aggressively against us. So there is a metagame advantage to calling too often and encouraging straight forward, more pasive play from our opponents.

Also, we can more easily judge if we are calling too often because of the information we gleen from the call. Where it is harder to learn from our bad folds, because we are blissfully unaware of our errors.

[DcifrThs]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
what this REALLY says is "id rather lose X*1bb now (where 0<=X<=1) than fold and have the possibility of losing the POT now"

[/ QUOTE ]

If this is your point, what does time value of money and the human tendency toward immediate gratification have to do with anything?

ML4L

[/ QUOTE ]

just babbling i guess but the motivation behind that is that we tend to look at a pot loss now as > fraction of a bb loss now even if the two are exactly equal in expectation.

Barron

[bobbyi]

Nice. I've actually tried to make this same argument here before. In fact, I remember doing so once in response to one of your hands [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img].

[astroglide]

me too!

http://tinyurl.com/98ho7