total unfluffableness

[mike l.]

youre right we did get off track. tommy has a policy of not talking during hands after hands before hands about hands. and he did. and that was bad. so let's get on his case about it. boo tommy. boo.

[Rick Nebiolo]

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

[/ QUOTE ]

Great point! I believe this is true for the vast majority of players, including Tommy, although he probably gets a lot closer than the rest of us.

Keep in mind that in this hand the pot is offering a little better than 22 to 1. If your opponent is actually bluffing/betting a worse hand only one time out of thirty yet you call you aren't making as big a mistake as if you fold when he is bluffing/betting a worse hand only one time out of sixteen (both numbers are seven off "one time out of twenty three" i.e., the break even number).

The margin of error in this type of situation tends to favor the caller, and given poker is not a game of precision, the caller has the edge in the close decisions on the river.

Anyway, just got home, don't feel well and am in dire need of a nap but i had to catch up on this thread first. I'll try to get back later when I'm fresh (as opposed to fresh out of ideas [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]).

~ Rick

[Clarkmeister]

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

True, but it's easy to know the difference between a player who bluffs and a player who never bluffs. And Tommy is saying that the book on this guy is that he never bluffs. Not that he'd only bluff 1 in 30, but that he would *never* bluff. What's the point of handreading and watching how people play if you never take advantage of it?

[Rick Nebiolo]

[ 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.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think it is as easy as you think; however if you observe everyday opponents a bluffing frequency in similar pots of one time in 10 versus one time in 30 should be reasonably achievable. But when it gets to estimating long shots based on observation strange things happen to our thinking and memory and my guess is we all break down a bit.

I reread the hand and I imagined the BB as a typical weak opponent. There is nothing inconsistent with his holding AQ or even Ax suited (nor is his play inconsistent with the flush draw that Tommy put him on). Perhaps his mannerisms during the hand made Tommy believe a flush draw was a near certainty. But typical opponents in California can give off false mannerisms and often bet scare cards on the river, especially when the river card doesn't scare them (Tommy certainly can't have a flush and is unlikely to be full).

Another problem here is that opponents adjust, and the rate of adjustment is difficult to judge. Many of Tommy's posts involve seemingly superhuman laydowns, and I can't help but think that even inferior players slowly adjust, perhaps even act a little to encourage another laydowns in the right spot. This wasn't one but if I were Tommy I'd be careful in the future. Maybe the guy will start reading 2+2 [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img].

~ Rick

[Rick Nebiolo]

[ QUOTE ]
"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?

[/ QUOTE ]

Other than the one in 21 mistake noted elsewhere it is break-even. But for you the problem is you don't want to encourage more bluffing in the future, since your default play appears to be to fold or saving bets on the close ones. As opponents start to bluff more your adjustment will probably lag a bit since you base the correct play in large part by observation and a keen memory.

In other words, calling on the close ones protects your future.

Still luv ya,

Rick

[Rick Nebiolo]

Tommy,

I needed to finish my post nap coffee and start my late night cocktail before tackling this one [img]/images/graemlins/crazy.gif[/img].

You wrote: "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..

Everything is a bit foggier for me but a weak player playing a weak suited ace would often play the same way with what I would perceive as the same groans. I guess I'm just not as confident in my reads, at least specific reads.

"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?"

Tommmy, attentiveness, concentration and memory are not my strong points so I rarely get beyond "relatively certain". But even in my foggy mind it has been my observation that with the advent of TV poker bluffing scare cards has become contagious, and these infections have taken hold of even the most predictable players. That's why I believe folding here can be dangerous.

"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."

I'm a slow thinker so bullet folding on a big pot is beyond my comprehension, sort of like warp speed before Star Trek. Because I'm a slow thinker I take a few seconds when I make plays postflop. And for strategic reasons (avoiding information leakage), let's say I miss a draw on the river in an unbluffable pot (although even determine what is an unbluffable pot would take some thought). Anyway, I'd take three seconds to fold just so my opponent won't easily know I missed a draw. But I admit my "meta mojo" game is different (and certainly not as stylish) than yours [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img].

I wrote previously: "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.

You responded: "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"

I'll fold on the smaller pots, but I just don't have the strength of will or confidence in my reads to be quite so certain on the big pots. Then again, wait until you get my age, nothing seems quite as certain anymore [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]

And Tommy, there is very little I could imagine you doing or saying that wouldn't be forgiven, especially "tone". [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

~ Rick

[astroglide]

this question isn't "is this guy bluffing more than 22:1?", it's "does this guy have a flush?". averages are good when you don't know exactly what to do or want to make a post-game observation, but the guy isn't doing anything ON AVERAGE right there. he's doing a very specific thing, right at that moment in time.

[random]

The dude cold calls preflop, calls one then two more on both the flop and turn. I'd say about 1 in 1,000+ players stay in with all this action on a pretend flush draw. And 1 in 30 players are good enough to bet something like AQ here against Tommy, because these people are soooo good to actually think, given Tommy's history, they might get a fold. But Tommy said this player is bad. So Tommy couldn't be anything but beat here.

Factor in Tommy's observation of the various mannerisms and the odds against the call get even better.

Is it not that simple?

[skp]

Well, the discussion obviously centres on the usual situation and not this specific player per se.

edit: Okay, disregard the above statement.

Besides, I don't think that Tommy said that the guy never bluffs. He said in one of his posts that his mannerisms on this hand indicated very strongly that he was not bluffing. But the read on those mannerisms better have little or no margin of error...that's all I have been saying.

[Zeno]

[ QUOTE ]
I guess I'm just not as confident in my reads, at least specific reads.


[/ QUOTE ]


This hand is a specific fold in time and space against a known player in a poker game. In that respect, it is entirely correct. If you know what your opponent is holding and know you are beat then calling is incorrect. In fact, it is foolish. You are paying for information that you already know and that is bad poker.


[ QUOTE ]
I'll fold on the smaller pots, but I just don't have the strength of will or confidence in my reads to be quite so certain on the big pots. Then again, wait until you get my age, nothing seems quite as certain anymore


[/ QUOTE ]

The size of the pot makes no difference at all. If you know what your opponent has then a fold is correct when you are beat. It is not only correct but more importantly, should be comfortable, as easy and soft has laying your head on an old feather pillow.

I recall a similar post/hand discussion along these same lines sometime ago. Someone called a bet when they knew they were beat (by a full house, I think). All the odds etc were spilled out and only a few people (including Mr. Angelo) said a fold was the correct play. Tommy ended up explaining it all by tossing rocks into the ocean, I believe. But perhaps my memory is a bit off. I entered in to simply state that there are times when you can be 100% certain and that too may ‘crying calls’ are made by players. IMO.

-Zeno