total unfluffableness

[Boris]

[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]

It should be very, very easy to distinguish between a player who bluffs one time in 10 from a player who bluffs one time in 30. This is especially true if you play in a California casino because you play so often against the same pool of players.

[shemp]

[ QUOTE ]
It's more important to be unfluffable than to be unbluffable.

[/ QUOTE ]

All comes down to who the fluffer is, if you catch my drift, and I think you do.

[andyfox]

[img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

[bigfishead]

They got "fluffers" at Lucky Chances now? I'm moving back!
Damn I just furnished this appt with all new furniture...ah hell...leave it!

[skp]

Well, I am not sure that it is easy to discern between someone who bluffs 1 in 30 and someone who bluffs 1 in 10. The former has a 3% chance of bluffing while the latter has a 10% chance of bluffing. In actual play, it would be difficult to know that one guy bluffs three times more often than the other. This is because it will just naturally seem that neither bluffs very often. I submit that in most cases, you simply can't tell who is the ten percenter and who is the 3 percenter.

In any event, the 1 in 30 and 1 in 10 were just thrown about as convenient guidelines to help make my point. But let's assume that that you call everytime against a guy who only bluffs 1 in 23 times (when you think he bluffs 1 in 20) and fold everytime against a different guy who bluffs 1 in 18 times (again, when you think he bluffs 1 in 20). The bigger error in the two scenarios is always folding when given 20 to 1 pot odds.

...and there's no way that anyone can distinguish a guy who bluffs 1 in 23 from a guy who bluffs 1 in 18.

[warlockjd]

Quick thought. Are the people who always call based soley on the size of the pot the same ones who never raise on the river with a sure loser after sensing weakness?

It seems to me maybe so.

[skp]

Your first 3 "I believe"s are correct (at least from my perspective - I also think that Rick will agree).

Your 4th "I believe" is:

[ QUOTE ]
But I believe [skp and Rick are] 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.



[/ QUOTE ]

Well, the 4th "I believe" is mistated. You cannot say that I am wrong on that score because I agree with what you go on to say in the rest of the quote. So, we are both right or we are both wrong.

But where we part ways is that I say that it is easy for even Tommy to "misassess the probability of certain things happening".

[spamuell]

[ QUOTE ]
people also don't consider how much money is saved on other folds for people who are "in a folding state of mind".vv

[/ QUOTE ]

This is really true. I doubt you read the SS forum very much but there are SO many players who just make ridiculous calls when it's so obvious they're beat because they just aren't used to folding solid-ish hands in reasonable sized pots.

[Doubling12]

It helps when you have absolute confidence in your ability. This applies both to the fold decision and the reaction to the card and the dealer error. I wish one learn that from a book...

[andyfox]

I suppose there are books that could help, but probably not poker books. Unless Tommy writes one. I don't think I'm speaking out of school in saying that it's not just confidence in one's abilities, but a realization of the importance, or lack thereof, in poker, in the dealer turning up his cards, in the river card beating him, in relation to other things. That realization comes easier when the other things are in balance. Maybe we should take this to the Psychology Forum.