|
|
#81
10-18-2005, 08:41 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: One more damn bet
[ QUOTE ]
Question for those who say call: What hand range does this type of player see the river with, considering the action, board, etc.? -Diplomat [/ QUOTE ] Hi Diplomat, I'd answer your question with one of my own. If you always fold here, what percentage of your hands are you folding to this river raise? Always folding is a highly exploitable strategy. Will this opponent exploit it? Perhaps not. Many players are not comfortable with this assumption though. They may give up a little, but they know they are winning, instead of trying to win a bit more but exposing themselves to potentially losing. I'd say the answer is between the two. See my post on a game theory solution. -Eric 
|
|
#82
10-18-2005, 08:48 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: One more damn bet
[ QUOTE ]
You can bring up game theory all day. This player isn't thinking on levels anywhere near game theory or "oh maybe if i bluff and he folds 10% i show a profit etc etc" [/ QUOTE ] One of the beauties of game theory is that it doesn't require that your opponent cooperate to be effective. It doesn't matter that he isn't thinking on this high a level. All that matters is that we aren't sure what to do. Few players are comfortable folding this every time. How often should you fold? Game theory tells you. Now, you are arguing that you prefer to use your judgment to make the call, rather than game theory. Essentially, you want to play suboptimally in order to take advantage of what you perceive as a whole in your opponents game. I have no problem with that. I'm merely saying that a 15% fold rate is the solution. You can adjust that higher or lower based on your perception of your opponents weakness. I also agree that you should probably fold MORE, since, as you point out, most players are this board just don't bluff-raise often. Still, it's a big step from 15% to 100%, especially since this is a short-handed game, and even fairly straight-forward players sometimes turn into maniacs in short games. To me, 100% is way too high. I wouldn't suggest folding more than 50% of the time, passive opponent or not, in a short-handed game. This lets you get away frequently, but lets you keep checking on him to see that he hasn't adjusted to your overly tight strategy. my 2 cents. eric
|
|
#83
10-18-2005, 08:54 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Don\'t crawl inside that shell!
[ QUOTE ]
I haven't met TSP... I'm 100% certain Tommy's ten times the man TSP is. It takes a pygmy to anonymously post insults on the web. [/ QUOTE ] The unintentional irony here is more than I can stand. Too funny. -Eric
|
|
#85
10-18-2005, 11:16 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: One more damn bet
[ QUOTE ]
What if our opponent in this hand turned out to be BVT? [/ QUOTE ] A number of things in no particular order: 1) It would be funny. 2) If #1 were true, I'd've said it already. 3) If it were me and it were him, he would be correct to call me as close to 0% of the time that we might as well call it 0%. Barron Vangor Toth BarronVangorToth.com
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
