total unfluffableness

[Evan]

This wasn't that, this was I thought he called so I have to table his hand to see if he won the pot (ITHCSIHTTHHTSIHWTP).

[Tommy Angelo]

Hi Rick,

The reason I said "he got there" was to get that part of the story over with as fast as possible.

"But maybe, just maybe, once in a while he was sort of already ..."

Rick. When he bet, I had a loser. There could not possibly be any other way. That's why I didn't elaborate even a little bit. But since you brought it up ...

There were layers of reliable cross-referenced tells and gestures and statements and patterns, spanning years in general, hours that day, and four betting rounds that hand. The way he called two cold preflop, and then the cap, he could not have had a big ace. He wouldn't even slow down, calling two cold from the big blind with any ace, let alone a big one. And he almost mucked to my reraise preflop, and after he called, he groaned a little in regret when it got capped. And it was all familiar. FWIW, his actual hand was 9-5. Rick, think of the most unsophisticated open-book player you have ever known. Is it really so impossible to imagine that you could occasionally know what he has?

"You bullet folded?"

The reason I bullet folded was that rivers stretch time. From when the river card hit the table to when it was my turn to act was something like two minutes after warpage.

"And I've never been so confident in a read that I have laid down a big hand for one bet head up when a scare card comes in a pot I couldn't jump over with a trampoline. Maybe I need to work on this.”

Well, forgive my tone, but until you think it is possible for it to be correct to fold when the flush gets there, you won’t.

Tommy

[skp]

But Mike, if anyone else made this laydown, we would be all over him on this board.

I am sure Tommy is a great card and situation reader. But the margin of error here is so slim. He should call unless he is nearly 100% sure that he is beat (which I gather he was - I can accept that ). But he also has to be reasonably sure that making this type of laydown will not encourage future bluffs - by this opponent or another who is observing - which Tommy might misread as "he got there".

Rick's point is simply that you don't have to be wrong often to make this fold disastrous. As great a reader as Tommy is, he is still way too fond of fruit plates IMO.

Why does it seem like I am talking about Tommy behind his back...heh

[andyfox]

Read paragraph 4 of Tommy's respons to Rick, the one beginning "There were layers . . . "

I wouldn't worry about Tommy being bluffed out on the river. Sometimes he makes a bullet call. Or a bullet raise. The river runs through him.

[Tommy Angelo]

"Rick's point is simply that you don't have to be wrong often to make this fold disastrous."

I still don't get that part. Let's say the pot is offering me 20-1 on a river call, and let's say the opponent will bluff me in this situation one time in 20. If I call every time, I come out even. And if I fold every time, I come out even.

How come everyone says I should call every time, when folding every time nets the same result? And if folding every time nets the same as calling every time, then on a case by case basis, what difference does it make if I fold or call?

Here's another angle:

Can I assume we agree that in order to generate profit from these river situations after thousands of trials, that I must do something other than call every time?

If we agree on that (and we throw out raising as an option), then that means the only possible way to do better than break even in these situations in the long run is to fold at least once.

At this time I'm not saying anything about the reason for picking a particular hand to fold on. I'm just looking for you or anyone to say that without at least one fold, the best we can hope for in these situations is to break even.

And maybe that is in fact the case, as with basic strategy at blackjack, where any variance from the proven strategy (counting aside) is a mistake. The best way to play at non-counting BJ is to be brainless and know what all your plays will be before you even get out of the car. Is calling on the river with a good hand and a big pot as mindless as non-counting blackjack, and should it be? Maybe it should.

But is it so outrageous to think that I could profit from these otherwise break-even river situations, by doing the poker equivalent of counting at blackjack, and vary my play from basic strategy at exactly the right times?


Tommy

[andyfox]

"Let's say the pot is offering me 20-1 on a river call, and let's say the opponent will bluff me in this situation one time in 20. If I call every time, I come out even. And if I fold every time, I come out even."

I believe you meant he will bluff you in this situation one time in 21. Then you break even.

I believe Rick and skp meant that if you believe he will bluff you one time in 21 and they see you bullet folding in big pots they will eventually start bluffing you one time in 20 (or 19) and you may make mistakes because you think they're still bluffing you one time in 21.

I believe they'll think your comparison of when you decide to call or fold (or raise) with varying from basic strategy is not a good analogy. I believe they'll say it's not because the blackjack play is based on objective facts, i.e., how rich or poor is the deck in certain cards, whereas your river decisions have an element of subjectivity to them such that it's tough to discern whether you have a 5% or a 6% chance of winning the pot.

But I believe they're wrong. Varying your bet or tactics from basic strategy is based upon one's assessment of the probability of certain things occurring. Which is exactly what you're doing on the river.

And if any of my "I believe"s are wrong, my apologies to my three friends.

[astroglide]

I still don't get that part. Let's say the pot is offering me 20-1 on a river call, and let's say the opponent will bluff me in this situation one time in 20. If I call every time, I come out even. And if I fold every time, I come out even.

exactly. but now people are going to say "ok but it could be 6% of the time instead of 10% of the time so it's not exactly 20:2" or whatever, but i think facts are facts here and in a brick and mortar game you know when you're beat and it's a good laydown. they have to bluff more than the exact pot is laying or it's just a breakeven play. i think folds like this are impossible to make properly online, but there are infinite other rivers where i feel people are pissing away bets because of an odds mantra. people also don't consider how much money is saved on other folds for people who are "in a folding state of mind".

[skp]

I'll comment more later (gotta run to a meeting) but when it is said that "you don't have to be wrong very often to make the fold disastrous", the "wrong" refers to you possibly misassessing your opponent's bluffing proclivity.

Thus, this comment of yours...

[ QUOTE ]
I still don't get that part. Let's say the pot is offering me 20-1 on a river call, and let's say the opponent will bluff me in this situation one time in 20. If I call every time, I come out even. And if I fold every time, I come out even.

How come everyone says I should call every time, when folding every time nets the same result? And if folding every time nets the same as calling every time, then on a case by case basis, what difference does it make if I fold or call?

[/ QUOTE ]

...can't hold water. It assumes as being correct the very thing that you could be wrong about.

You have assumed that the opponent bluffs 1 in 20. If it turns out that it is actually 1 in 30 and you call every time, you would be making a mistake. But if it turns out that it is actually 1 in 10, you would be making a bigger mistake by folding every time.

Thus, in a big pot, the best play is to "not count cards" and "mindlessly call".

One can of course try to play perfect poker by always folding at the right time and always calling at the right time. But in trying to get there, you may unwittingly be shooting yourself in the foot.

[mike l.]

"How come everyone says I should call every time, when folding every time nets the same result?"

because $800 is a lot of money at least in other circles and it will cost you at least that much to clean the vomit off yourself and those around you those times he flashes you an A as he rakes in the pot.

but i still think it was a good laydown because you lose more than 1 in 20 times here.

[andyfox]

When I first saw the post, I assumed the title was Total Unbluffableness. Only after reading it did I look more carefully and see the actual title.

We have a situation here where, 1) in the middle of a hand, a player exposed his cards; 2a) the dealer did not gather in the bets on the turn and 2b) exposed Tommy's card when he folded to a river bet; and 3) Tommy lost a monster pot when a 3rd suited card came on the river. At Commerce, cards would be thrown, f-bombs exploded, and twenty minutes assigned. We've gotten sidetracked talking about why Tommy should have thrown away forty dollars when he knew he was only getting the silver medal.

It's more important to be unfluffable than to be unbluffable.