interesting question..theory vs reality (long post)

I like your point about opportunity cost; that's a very good way to look at it. That's what the authors mean when they say "save the edge for a bigger edge later on": if the cost of taking race is getting your money in later when you may be a 60%-70% favourite, then the cost is too high. If you're confident of your edge, the race can be seen as a loss.

If the guy has you outmatched, it could still well be a loss to call. After all, you just have to beat the table, not him. Having him on your right makes him easy to avoid, and one shark at a table of feebs does not diminish your huge edge.

[benkahuna]

[ QUOTE ]
Exactly - most people here would agree, I think, and even Sklansky mentions this somewhere - it's often right to turn down a good bet if it means you can take an even better one later (just like how it's sometimes right to take a bad bet if it means avoiding an even worse one later).

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not sure Sklansky would apply this concept here. He seems to usually apply this concept when discussing being aggressive on the turn v. the flop in a limit game where bets double on the turn. He also seems to apply it to tournaments when discussing making a play that could cost you all your chips early with a small edge. However, I just haven't read it from Sklansky, it certainly doesn't mean he wouldn't apply it here.

[benkahuna]

This question is really about variance and not about making the right play.

I think your decision here should be based more on your risk tolerance than anything else. I'd guess you don't want to risk a night's worth of winnings here. Since you're playing NL100, risking 700 on a small edge seems like far too much risk.

However, if 700 is only a small part of your bankroll (less than 5 percent at the very most if you're paying expenses with your bankroll if you ask Chris Ferguson), you could consider taking this risk. It's really a matter of personal taste as far as I can see.

If you're going to assume an all in guy has AK before you call with 77 (and calling off all your chips without a stunning hand is almost always a mistake), you'd better have an amazing handle on the guy's betting patterns or a really, really consistently performing tell.

If you can consistently kill NL100 (and I do mean kill), I could see calling here as an acceptable play because you should be able to make it up on an average night.

Given the strong caveats necessary for making such a call, my gut tells me you don't want to do it. If I'm playing NL100, I'm not doing it. But maybe your bankroll is bigger and your performance much more consistent than my own. With a huge bankroll, you're going to take every small edge that you can.

Here's another test for yourself whether you should make this call. If you call and lose, what is your response? Do you feel you made a mistake? If you do, then you shouldn't do it. If you're playing poker well in all respects, I'm going to assume you're not bothered by losing if you made the statistically correct play and for the right reasons.

I'm also curious what your particular fascination with this problem is. Do you want to make a call here?

You have a small advantage against this guy but if you lose you are giving up more than the $700. You will give up your ability to win a huge $1000+ pot later on. If the games are super juicy than the small EV you have on the all-in is outweighed by the much larger EV that you will have later on.
I would consider the ability to safely take down a huge pot later on much more important here since the game is so good. The imidiate risk is just not worth the potential reward.

[mudbuddha]

no big deal really, i was thinkin after a few posts i read on here, and felt it was very wrong to call here regardless of the edge. my friend thought it was a easy call bc he had the "best of it" I would even folda 60/40 against that guy.

[benkahuna]

[ QUOTE ]
You have a small advantage against this guy but if you lose you are giving up more than the $700. You will give up your ability to win a huge $1000+ pot later on. If the games are super juicy than the small EV you have on the all-in is outweighed by the much larger EV that you will have later on.
I would consider the ability to safely take down a huge pot later on much more important here since the game is so good. The imidiate risk is just not worth the potential reward.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's a math problem. You have to know your hourly rate and the potential for the situation you describe to occur. I would tend to agree with you, but I still consider it a question of taste and I don't consider it as unequivocal as you describe. It sounds like it's always a juicy game like this..

There are two opportunity costs here. Passing up the advantage on the hand described and the 45 percent chance of passing up a better advantage in a (then) hypothetical future pot. The exact size of that future advantage also has a bearing in this problem. If you pass up this pot now, you're giving something up and you could still lose with a 2:1 or 3:1 advantage later.

I'm not trying to be too defensive of my previous post, but rather I want to fairly answer the question with good, critical reasoning here given the assumptions presented in the problem.

In the conditions described and given the likely bankroll Doyle would have to play a game at any particular limit (so if he played no limit 100, he'd probably have a minimum bankroll of maybe 20k, etc.), I believe he would call.

Chip Reese addresses this very point in SS1. He says the mathematically "correct" play is not always the best play.

His example was against a drunken fool who he figured he was a favorite against in one particular hand, so he was willing to get all his money in. The guy sucked out on him, and he lost a whole evening's worth of gamble in one hand. At some point, later on, the fish figured to get them all in in an even worse spot, and in the meantime he could play against the whole rest of the table as well.

Also consider the effect on the sucker if you table a pair and fold. He's likely to try that again when you have AA or KK, or make some other outrageous bluff where you risk very little.

With an all-in, you're getting even money. If he tries that again when there are more people in the pot ahead of him, you can get an even better price in the same situation, possibly when his stack is smaller than yours at the moment.

If it is a truly even money bet, ask yourself if, regardless of the poker underway, you would flip a coin for $700 right now. If not -- if the money means more to you than him -- then don't do it. Being selectively risk-averse isn't necessarily being meek.

I'm giving an opinion even though I've never played a pot bigger than $400 in my life, so feel free to ignore me, but these situations come up in places other than poker, and (for me anyway) the same thinking applies. A slight edge with huge consequences isn't always enough.

-steve albini

[benkahuna]

I read that section from Chip too. Part of the problem was that the hand broke him for the night. That's not a problem in the current situation.

[The_Bends]

In general I agree with the fold line. You don't need to take such a small edge when you stand to lose so much of your 'weight' and therefore potential earning power in one go. It sort of reminds me of a later tournament situation where it is in your intrests to keep the current situation going (e.g. big stacked on the bubble and stealing from the shorties rather than knocking people out).

This decision depends entirely on the composition of the table. If thisw guy was the only fish I'd take the bet because the other sharks would likely take his money before I got another chance with a bigger edge. If the whole table is fishy then you can happily let it slide because you'll get another chance against one of them. The crossover point must come somewhere in the middle where at a certain ratio of fish to sharks the call/fold decision makes no difference but I dunno where that is.