Another hand from the archives

[ErrantNight]

You're willing to give the button a 10-15% turn fold rate but not even that for a river donkbet?

You're worried about the river action but give no weight to the times you improve and the button (or even the BB the times he has a made hand but not JT) does to and you get to go multiple bets?

What about the times you're ahead?

What makes you think if you and the botton both call and the board pairs the straight doesn't bet anyway?

You're checking for information, so that you can fold for exactly the same number of bets as when YOU cap. Only now you're not charging the button when you're ahead.

I did not see this post when I made my other, angrier retort... but I still think you're overestimating the number of times the button either folds or caps here... by a lot.

[ErrantNight]

scenario 1) the river goes bet, you call, raise

scenario 2) i wouldn't call the turn, and the button wouldn't cap. but if i were rob (and he wrote something to this effect), he would call the turn, call the button cap, call the bb donk bet on the river, and then fold after the button raised.

costing you exactly the same amount...

now, he claims that since we called the turn, we now have more information about where our hand stands, and that since we will sometimes be able to showdown for just two more bb's (call the turn, it's called behind, we call the river unimproved), that these two factors in concert make calling the turn a better play.

he can probably elaborate, or you can reread his posts.

i would counter that it's a helluva lot easier for me to fold this river if i cap the turn and the button is still coming over the top on the river. further, i would argue that the times we get to showdown and lose for one bb less are far outweighed by the number of times we showdown for one bb more and win, or improve and win.

further, i suggest that the river action will be largely unaltered by the presence of a turn cap. either the button will improve and raise behind, or will improve and call behind, or will not improve and will call behind.

[ErrantNight]

one of three things must be true

(a) i'm being so rude in my responses that even though i'm making valid points no one can bring themselves to read/acknowledge them (because no one is)

(b) people have already decided that one particular course of action or another is correct and is reading the situation improbably in favor of this opinion

(c) some combination of the two.

since everyone seems to think i'm just a raving monster with no poker insight aside from "must... raise... always..." and "calling... is... always... weak... tight.... ggrrrraaaarrrrrrr!!!!" i'll just shut up now and wait for someone else to maybe start presenting some compelling math/argument. because even with rob's excellent analysis... there's nothing.

[Jake (The Snake)]

Your posts come off very negatively. Yes, you make some points which are valid... then you typically use language which I do not think is of best interest to the discussion.

As for the math, Stellar's math does not take into account every variable in the hand. There are a ridiculous number of possibilities going on in this hand, and many assumptions have to be made in order to decide the best course of action. If I have any time tonight/tomorrow, I'll try to start doing some of the math to see if it can go anywhere.

This is the type of problem, though, where math is extremely difficult to do (because there is going to be a big difference in the assumptions you and I would make for example), and so we end up arguing over concepts.

[ErrantNight]

Which is why I haven't done any math... but I think that regardless of my tone I have rather successfully countered most if not all of the arguments in favor of a call... and have yet to hear anybody specifically refute the points that I'm making.

If I'm wrong, and I've been known to be wrong, I'd love to know it. I'm not arguing so vehemently so that I can be right. I'm arguing so vehemently because I believe I'm right, and I keep reading the same (in my estimation, incorrect) arguments that I've already responded to.

Anyway, obviously I lied about shutting up. But I'll at least alter my tone going forward.

[Entity]

[ QUOTE ]
because even with rob's excellent analysis... there's nothing.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't get what you're saying.

I'm accustomed to your tone enough that it doesn't bug me. But I'm unhappy by your reluctance to do math when I at least attempted it, because it's a [censored] close decision here, but you're going to have to stab at the math involved to actually present an argument here. I tried, even if I'm wrong. Stellar's argument in the original thread was good but incomplete, and I think mine is missing some important variables as well, but I'm trying to get a complete picture.

[ QUOTE ]

further, i suggest that the river action will be largely unaltered by the presence of a turn cap. either the button will improve and raise behind, or will improve and call behind, or will not improve and will call behind.

[/ QUOTE ]

This really is the crux of the argument, and empirical evidence from my play suggests that you're 100% wrong. But who knows; maybe you play in games where unknowns don't get scared or slow down, or maybe you play in games where they play more aggressively on the turn but slow down on the river.

Readless, my contention is simple: I don't think we're ahead often enough to cap and I think we lose bets when improving by capping when behind. You can disagree if you want, but I read every single one of your posts before commenting about what the key differences between our standpoints were. I'd appreciate the same courtesy from you. I don't take offense at your tone, as I have said, but I'm chagrined by the fact that you didn't care to read what I wrote before dismissing my argument.

Rob