Why would I cap?

[partygirluk]

I am sitting to the left (acting after) of a raging LAG who seems determined not to leave the table until he has lost all his money. He is down to less than 10BBs however. Table is 5 handed.

LAGtard bets into me on the river, and I raise. Typical players calls 2 cold, LAG 3 bets. LAG is bad, but he wouldn't do this unless he had me beat 100% of the time. You are also sure there is no way LAG will fold to your river cap. You have 3rd player on a weak made hand, likely better than LAGs, and think there is a chance he will fold for 2 more on the river. The pot is very big. Who can see why it might be best for me to cap here?

[Piiop]

Can't think of why. You say he's got you beat 100% of the time and won't fold.

If you are thinking to put the other player on tilt by trying to get him to fold, it's not worth it. When he does call the cap, you ensure that you lose 2 BB's and he gets the LAG's money. You don't want him to start calling YOU more cuz you'd rather be HU with the lag. The guy may not even tilt, anyway.

If you're thinking that it will encourage him to stay around longer, I doubt it would have any effect on that (other than he now has 2 more of your BB's).

Not seeing a reason to cap this.

[spamuell]

Who can see why it might be best for me to cap here?

Because you're bad at poker but you're too egocentric to admit you suck even though you can't win at the limit you're playing, so you need to lose money so you can move down for the reason that, "I like to be conservative with my bankroll".

[EStreet20]

[ QUOTE ]
LAG is bad, but he wouldn't do this unless he had me beat 100% of the time.

[/ QUOTE ]

Therefore you shouldn't cap.

I think you're reasoning that you should cap to give the LAG more money instead of the decent player, who you think will fold to a raise. However, he already cold called once, why wouldn't he now when the pot is bigger? I think you're reasoning is flawed because A. You're not 100% sure the decent player will fold and B. Either way you're dumping mopney at this point and even if it goes to the LAG you can't be sure you'll win it back.

Good luck,
Matt

P.S. if you don;t have a made hand and you think the decent player does then why are you still going after this pot? It's not just you and the LAG anymore, you have to know you're behind here.

[mantasm]

There is no +EV justification for capping if you're behind 100% of the time and won't get the better hand to fold. Obviously the best thing to do would be to fold. I'd like to hear what you're thinking though.

[baronzeus]

i think the idea is that we would rather get the other guy to fold so the raging LAG wins the pot. (we want him to have money as much as possible). essentially if this is like a 30BB pot, the LAG's stack will go from 10BB from 40BB and hopefully we will be able to make up the 2BBs we spewed at the end here.

however, im not sure if it works out EV wise. its really hard to estimate.

[mantasm]

[ QUOTE ]
i think the idea is that we would rather get the other guy to fold so the raging LAG wins the pot. (we want him to have money as much as possible). essentially if this is like a 30BB pot, the LAG's stack will go from 10BB from 40BB and hopefully we will be able to make up the 2BBs we spewed at the end here.

however, im not sure if it works out EV wise. its really hard to estimate.

[/ QUOTE ]


That makes sense. Maybe you have an expectation of 4BB/100 with him in that seat and 2BB/100 if he's not. Then he'd have to stick around for 100 more hands than he would have otherwise for you to break even. It's an interesting idea, I don't think you make up the 2BB in the future though.