River folds are cool atm.

[krishanleong]

[ QUOTE ]

If I choose to raise the river for value against a single betting opponent, I will never fold for one additional bet no matter how grim it looks if I am getting better than 8 to 1.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is like the worst rule ever.

Krishan

[ArturiusX]

You venture into this board to state the obvious? Please post here more [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[MicroBob]

much of the time if they're that passive pre-flop (35/10 is fairly passive) then they aren't likely to be capable of 3-betting on a board like this without having you beat.


If you had some ag-factor numbers or other observations to the contrary then go ahead and call if you think you have a chance.
In other words...without knowing anything else about this guy...if he was 35/30 PF instead of 30/10 I would more seriously consider calling-down.

Passive before flop tends to stay reasonably passive post-flop a lot of the time thus you can pretty much believe them when they go crazy on you.

[tansoku]

[ QUOTE ]
Sorry, I meant the turn check, of course.

Yeah, I mean I don't really see what betting accomplishes, if we're ahead hes probably folding, if we're behind the free card is good.

[/ QUOTE ]

I really don't like giving gutshots/OESD's a free card here, and they most likely call incorrectly. Qx hands certainly call here which is thin because they'd be getting 4:1, and the chance of a split is high.
Your A outs are really dirty.
Worse, any card that improves him you split or lose to most of the time.
Getting raised on the turn really sucks. Maybe if you know he'll raise an OESD on the turn the check is good. Otherwise I bet here and be glad to take down the pot given this board..

[krishanleong]

[ QUOTE ]
You venture into this board to state the obvious? Please post here more [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

Go comment on the thread I started. You better explains your outs. I made it for you and you haven't gotten involved.

Krishan

[jba]

[ QUOTE ]

If I choose to raise the river for value against a single donk betting opponent, I will never fold for one additional bet no matter how grim it looks if I am getting better than 8 to 1.

There, I said it. My new rule doesn't stop me from attempting razor thin value raises

[/ QUOTE ]

of course it does. you will either not be making enough raises or some of your value raises will become -EV

[Benman]

Not really. I judge a value bet as follows: if called, am i still the favorite. I don't worry about getting raised when judging the value bet as well, since I might choose to fold. Now, you're correct that my rule ties my hands by forcing me to call the raise, which might be -ev, but it need not make me more reluctant to value bet in the first place, nor does it make my value bets theoretically less profitable since making the bet and responding to the raise are different (at lease in my mind, which is fairly scattered).

[jba]

[ QUOTE ]
Not really. I judge a value bet as follows: if called, am i still the favorite. I don't worry about getting raised when judging the value bet as well, since I might choose to fold. Now, you're correct that my rule ties my hands by forcing me to call the raise, which might be -ev, but it need not make me more reluctant to value bet in the first place, nor does it make my value bets theoretically less profitable since making the bet and responding to the raise are different (at lease in my mind, which is fairly scattered).

[/ QUOTE ]

no, they're not and it isn't close. If you can fold to a 3bet in the OP hand, you can make that raise if you believe your hand is good >50% of the time when called. If you think you're going to be good 51% of the time when called and you are unable to fold to a 3bet you cannot raise for value here. You can understand that right?

[Benman]

[ QUOTE ]
no, they're not and it isn't close...You can understand that right?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, I can understand your argument but I think it's incorrect.

My rule is based on the fact that, whether I have the ability to fold to a 3bet or not, it's never very -ev (for the final call alone, considered in isolation) to simply always call, given high enough odds (my cutoff is about 8 - 1).

Your critism of me assumes that I'm conceding that my automatic river call is sometimes a huge mistake, ev-wise. If that were the case, then yes, I'd simply be stupid and if I was to have any merit as a human I'd have to go back and re-think my value betting from an earlier street to compensate for this big leak. But I don't concede that a river call at better than 8 to 1 is EVER seriously minus EV. I know that if this assumption is correct, then my point I made earier about not having to consider the two in tandem is correct.

I'm aware that TOP says something (I'm at work and don't have it in front of me) about limiting river value bets to times when you are 55% favorite to take into account getting raised and thus, presumabely, having to give it up, therefore incurring an occasional -1 bet vs. 0 for just checking. But I don't give it up because I think my river call is positive ev since I apply my rule only at long enough odds that I believe that to be the case.

But, I fully expect that you, and many others, will disagree that a river call is always neutral or better in terms of ev at the odds I require. Here's the way I think about it--the more and more improbable the success a particular river call seems to be, the more incentive someone has to bluff. There are some situations where it's "impossible" that I have the best hand, but as long as I have literally more than the bottom two unpaired cards you have to concede that a call is positive ev at some set of odds, right? What if I restated my rule to say 100 to 1. Are than any situations, other than holding bottom two upaired cards, where the possibility of a bluff or a newbie misclick doesn't justify a call?

So, I'm prepared to accept criticism of my rule being triggered at 8 to 1. Otherwise I think you're criticism of me is incorrect as it's based on an incorrect assumption of how I view the strenght of my hand even after I make the crying call.

[jba]

hey ben -

actually, it's pretty clear that you didn't understand my argument. I'm not assuming your river call is a huge mistake and you are correct in a very large pot it's usually never going to be.

here is an example

your opponent bets into you on the river, and you believe the following things are true if you raise:

55% of the time your opponent will call and you win
30% of the time your opponent will call and you lose
15% of the time your opponent will 3bet and you lose

you can only raise for value here if you can fold to a 3bet. Do you see this now?