similiar to the 'paranoia' post...

[waffle]

Monty,

I looked up asymmetric risk preference, and all I got out of it is that losing $50 might distress someone more than winning $50 makes him happy. But as poker players, we shouldn't use this in our decisions, should we? EV is EV as long as we have the bankroll to back it up.

As far as the tough laydown.. I still don't see a 0.4 bb difference in folding the flop and folding the turn. In both situations they raised my continuation bet and got me to lay down my hand.

Stellar,

These stats indicate that we've seen opponent react to a flop continuation bet 24 times and outline what he did each time. They can be found in PokerAceHUD.

Peter,

I think Ed Miller's section on loose flop calls mentioned the cavet that it should be done when the difference between folding and calling is otherwise close. I don't think it's close in this situation, because we're only drawing to two outs. (The idea that we may be ahead is not useful if we're planning on folding the turn, since we will never realize that equity.)

All,

I called down and was shown QJ. I didn't look up his detailed continuation bet / flop behavior statistics in the heat of battle.

Waffle

[Monty Cantsin]

[ QUOTE ]

I looked up asymmetric risk preference, and all I got out of it is that losing $50 might distress someone more than winning $50 makes him happy. But as poker players, we shouldn't use this in our decisions, should we? EV is EV as long as we have the bankroll to back it up.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, asymmetric risk preference refers to the fact that people are more likely to take an unfavorable gamble when they start from a down position then they are to take a favorable gamble when they start from an up position.

It's a mistake that you want to profit from, not a mistake you want to make.

/mc

Ha ha ha. Look at the advice here:

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showfl...;gonew=1#UNREAD

And that is full ring, where opponents are less likely to semi-bluff raise.