Pop quiz

[Nick Royale]

[ QUOTE ]
I’m pretty sure that this is right, but could be more clearly explained by someone else.

[/ QUOTE ]
It's wrong...

[aK13]

Stop changing your read in the middle of a hand.

[invictus33]

Reads? [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

In all reality there are a lot of factors that would go into this decision, so it's hard to make a thin call without anything other then an outside chance he's bluffing. Against an unknown I'd make the weak fold here. I won't put up two BB on an outside chance that bottom pair is going to hold up.

If you post a hypothetical hand (since you say this happens often it should be easy to make one up) so you can illustrate the point you're trying to make. If the call is going to be thin then I'd want a little more info then what was provided.

[DcifrThs]

this has nothing to do with precise mathematics and as eric said, simple logic.

poker is about adjusting and readjusting based on new information.

we first note that

[ QUOTE ]
You decide it'll probably take 2 pair to win. The pot is just big enough that, with your implied odds, you can barely call if you plan to fold unimproved. You are getting the proper odds to draw, but just barely.


[/ QUOTE ]

with just this information if we were told that we'd also have to call a river bet, its a clear fold due to effective odds b/c eric has assumed implicitly we collect another bet and he never has better than up and down 2 pair (i assume our kicker is an overcard to the board). if we now add another bb cost, it drives the cost of the call up and now effective odds wont cover it.

but then we find out:

[ QUOTE ]


You are just getting ready to call when you realize that you have some doubt about whether or not you are losing. You think there's an outside chance your opponent is bluffing. If you call the turn, you decide that you're going to be forced to call a river bet unimproved.

[/ QUOTE ]

that first sentance changes the situation and you now have to adjust. before, calling a river bet was a negative thing, but now, after (again i assume) playing the hand back and going over plays the opponent has made, our hero comes to the conclusion (realizes) that he is ahead more than he initially thought, or that the opponents hand range has now increased (to include more bluffs) then the call down has changed from -ev to +ev.

the information given here is all that is necessary because of the phrasing eric chose and the fair assumptions i have made.

the words "outside chance" are meant to throw you off. one person's outside chance is another's close call. it also depends on the things at hand. if i told you id bet you my 10,000 vs. your 100 on an outside chance you'll probably take it b/c thats 100:1, but if i told you you'd have to give your life on an outside chance for even $1mil that 1% doesn't look so favorable anymore and the "outside chance" has become a close call.

how often is a bluff here? 10%, 15%, 20%, 1%...it doesn't matter. what matters is that hero has concluded that it was a close call w/ implied odds. new information was then introduced that did 2 things that BOTH lead towards a call, it 1) increased the probability of him currently holding the best hand, and 2) increased the opponents range of holdings that bet.

this is a call the way eric phrased it in conjunction w/ the way i interpreted his phrasing.

those who voted fold were taken in by irresistable lure of the "outside chance"

Barron

[mack848]

[ QUOTE ]
I voted "call."

If there's about an 11 percent chance I'll improve to the best hand and about a 10 percent chance I already have the best hand, I don't want to fold the turn, getting 7:1 or so.

I'll deal with the river when I get to it. Besides, if my opponent is bluffing, he might not fire again on the river.

[/ QUOTE ]

The only way you can include the % of the time he is bluffing in you decision whether to call the turn or not, is if you plan you call the river. You can't "deal with the river when I get to it" - and still get 7:1. You either have 7:1 to call and fold the river unimproved, or 4:1 to call/call.

[mack848]

Eric said that it was a close call between folding the turn and calling the turn/folding the river unimproved.

He did not say that it was close between either of these options and calling down - when you only get ~ half the pot odds.

Would the difference between ~7:1 and ~4:1 not have to be made up by the chance of winning unimproved?

[Nick Royale]

[ QUOTE ]
Eric said that it was a close call between folding the turn and calling the turn/folding the river unimproved.

He did not say that it was close between either of these options and calling down - when you only get ~ half the pot odds.

Would the difference between ~7:1 and ~4:1 not have to be made up by the chance of winning unimproved?

[/ QUOTE ]
#1
We can call the turn and make a small profit.

#2
We can call the river and make a small profit.

How could 2 profitable calls ever become a -EV action?

[Nick Royale]

You shouldn't see it as a calldown. The first call is profitable because we have good enough odds to improve our hand (the odds are enough even if we fold the river). The second call is profitable because we have good enough odds to have the best hand.

[Nick Royale]

I really can't believe this many actually voted fold...

[Octopus]

What is the problem?

If calling on the river unimproved is profittable and if calling on the turn is profittable IGNORING the profit which comes from calling on the river unimproved then how can we even consider folding on the turn when we add in that additional profit from the river call?