when can i make a laydown like this??

[sthief09]

I wrote this to Evan the other day. the fur coat dilemma doesn't really apply to pretty big pots. it's not simply an excuse to make bad calls. not that I think that either is a bad call though

[bobbyi]

[ QUOTE ]
it's really not that easy to be 95% sure of something

[/ QUOTE ]
This is an interesting observation, but it is not an excuse for not acting on your certainly on the rare occassions when you are 95% sure.

[sthief09]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
it's really not that easy to be 95% sure of something

[/ QUOTE ]
This is an interesting observation, but it is not an excuse for not acting on your certainly on the rare occassions when you are 95% sure.

[/ QUOTE ]

the way I look at it, I only make those calls when I know I'm 95% sure. mistakenly calling costs a lot less than mistakenly folding. if you just think you're 95% sure, you probably aren't

[Steve Giufre]

[ QUOTE ]
Hi Barron,

I’d be way more likely to fold the second hand than the first hand.



[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah no question. In the first hand you'll get a fair amount of players who will lead that river with any king they are planning on caling the river with. I think laying that hand down for one bet on the river would be a mistake agaist most players. In hand two you showed a tremendous amount of strength. You capped preflop, raised the flop, and three bet the turn. It does look pretty hopeless on the river. Agaist some opponents I'd say you can fold without thinking about it much. But it would be a shame to let a loose aggro player slip one by you here for one bet. When the pot gets that big on the net I usually call on the chance that sombodys little brother came into the room and took over the computer for a couple minutes.

[bobbyi]

[ QUOTE ]
mistakenly calling costs a lot less than mistakenly folding. if you just think you're 95% sure, you probably aren't

[/ QUOTE ]
Saying it's "a lot less" obviously depends on how wrong you are. There's no way you can know it's a lot less in the general case; that doesn't even make sense. How big a mistake you made depends on how big a mistake you made. Suppose there are 18 bets on the pot, you are heads up on the river, and your opponent bets. You are getting 19-1 on the call so you need to be beat 95% of the time to fold. Suppose you are only beat 93%, but you fold anyway. How big is your mistake? Since you folded, you took an EV of zero. If you called, you could have had:
7% of the time you pick up 19 bets. .07 * 19 = 1.33
93% of the time, you lose 1 bet: .93 * -1 = -.93
Total is .4
So, you made a mistake that cost you a little less than a small bet.

Suppose that you call when there was really a 98% chance you were beat. You could have taken an EV of 0, but instead took:
2% of the time you pick up 19 bets. .02 * 19 = .38
98% of the time, you lose 1 bet: .98 * -1 = -.98
Total is -.6
So, you made a mistake that cost you a little more than a small bet. Yeah, this is a bigger mistake than the .4 mistake when you mistakenly call. But not by that much. Obviosuly, we can change the numbers to make either one bigger. My general point (not well made, now that I reread this) is that if it's a close decision, it's a close decision. There is a lot of superstition on these boards that if you make a mistaken call, the money you lose somehow doesn't count because you did the "right thing" even though it clearly wasn't, but if you make a mistaken fold, then you are an idiot who knows nothing about poker, and people are flamed for making the mistaken folds but rarely the mistaken calls. It's silly. Close decisions are close decisions, whether they occur on the river or preflop, and aren't where the real money is made.

[sthief09]

yeah, you're right. you're fast becoming one of my favorite posters

[steveyz]

In the 2nd hand, I have trouble believing that the flop raiser and turn check-raiser would not try to check-raise the river with the made flush. From the action, you have probably AA or KK or AK and there's no reason to think that you won't bet the river when checked to, unless he's got a really good read on you that you are a good hand reader. I don't think I could be 95% sure here.

[astroglide]

i started a thread on the whole 'fur coat' thing here

[cnfuzzd]

That was a great post. I enjoyed it thoroughly.

However, the read im given on hand #2 is that the villian is essentially unknown, though a bit aggressive. Im not willing to make this fold everytime against an unknown. Im not saying the fur coat situation applies here, but i do think without a read its worthwhile to consider that you may be facing a situation that warrents a call.

peace

john nickle

[TStoneMBD]

couldnt it be argued that if you called in every close situation such as this, it would reduce variance?