Please don't wake me, no don't shake me, leave me where i am

[flawless_victory]

[ QUOTE ]
That turn card helped you enormously, as you just drew out on all pocket pairs JJ and lower.

[/ QUOTE ]seriously?
[ QUOTE ]
Therefore I think you should call on the end.


[/ QUOTE ]i dont.

[theBruiser500]

"do you not think it's a little excessive? 2bbs to win 5bb when only JJ TT will fold while AK AQ would play this way?

hmm, by combinations (6:6), it's not excessive; surprising."

2 aces left, 3 kings left, 2 queens, 3 jacks.

JJ = 3
TT = 6

AK = 6
AQ = 4
AA/QQ = 2

12 to 9 right?

[lil feller]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Well, without any reads, turn and river play aren't consistent, I'd either fold the turn or call the river, and lean towards calling the river.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's possible the turn and river are consistent.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't see how. If you're behind on the turn you're drawing dead so obviously if your calling its because you think your in front.

The river card can't change anything, and with no reads you have no way of knowing whether this opponent is any more likely to bluff twice or value bet twice. The pause might mean something, but could mean anything or nothing. Maybe he spilt his water glass, maybe he didn't want to bluff on the turn but thought and decided to do so. Maybe after deciding to bluff the turn he committed to bluffing the river and checked the autobet button.

I can't think of any advanced poker logic that can possibily justify calling one street, but not the other. Its just fundamentally wrong against an unknown opponent.

lf

[geormiet]

[ QUOTE ]


I can't think of any advanced poker logic that can possibily justify calling one street, but not the other. Its just fundamentally wrong against an unknown opponent.

lf

[/ QUOTE ]

What about the logic that if he bets the 2nd street the chances of his having the best increases to where folding is correct?

i.e. you were calling on the 1st street hoping that he will check behind on the 2nd street often enough in combination with you improve often enough to make the play profitable.

Like you said this is bad against an unknown, but there are certain basic situations where you could pull this off against an unknown.

[glen]

lil feller didn't say anything about the flop call, just the logic that if you fold the hand it should be on the turn, and that calling the turn and folding the river is bad, which I agree with, unless you have a strong reason to think you are definitely not good, which is unlikely at party. . .

[lil feller]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


I can't think of any advanced poker logic that can possibily justify calling one street, but not the other. Its just fundamentally wrong against an unknown opponent.

lf

[/ QUOTE ]

What about the logic that if he bets the 2nd street the chances of his having the best increases to where folding is correct?

i.e. you were calling on the 1st street hoping that he will check behind on the 2nd street often enough in combination with you improve often enough to make the play profitable.

Like you said this is bad against an unknown, but there are certain basic situations where you could pull this off against an unknown.

[/ QUOTE ]

I just can't ever see this being correct against an unknown player. Some players you know will only fire once, an this is certainly a board where players like that would take that line. This is an unknown player though, and if you've convinced yourself that he's bluffing on the turn, then your showing the hand down. If you're not sure of his intention then calling is horrible, because you can't be any more sure when he bets the river because he's an unknown.

Its about expectations. Against somebody you know, and more importantly somebody that knows you, you can reasonably assume that they EXPECT you to call the river after you call the turn. Therefore, you should fold the river if they bet again, since they're expecting you to call.

Against an unknown there are no reasonable expectations, especially online. People do stuff that makes no sense all the time. I'm just saying in this particular instance if your gonna fold, fold on the turn.

lf

[ALL1N]

How about if you simply expect 80% of unknowns to give up after you call the turn?

[lil feller]

[ QUOTE ]
How about if you simply expect 80% of unknowns to give up after you call the turn?

[/ QUOTE ]

How you arrive at that number I have no idea. I don't guess against players I don't know. I look them up and remember. Picking a number out of the air that makes the fold look better doesn't make it correct.

lf

[ALL1N]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
How about if you simply expect 80% of unknowns to give up after you call the turn?

[/ QUOTE ]

How you arrive at that number I have no idea. I don't guess against players I don't know. I look them up and remember. Picking a number out of the air that makes the fold look better doesn't make it correct.

lf

[/ QUOTE ]

It is a game of numbers. Not putting numbers on this sort of thing (whether consciously or unconsciously) is just not using your brain.

You say that the fold is fundamentally wrong. Yet if 80% of unknowns give up after the turn call, it is clearly correct. I'm not saying that the 80% figure is right or wrong, I'm saying that based on the assumption it is right, folding the river is the correct play.

[Chris Callahan]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Well, without any reads, turn and river play aren't consistent, I'd either fold the turn or call the river, and lean towards calling the river.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's possible the turn and river are consistent.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't see how. [...] I can't think of any advanced poker logic that can possibily justify calling one street, but not the other. Its just fundamentally wrong against an unknown opponent.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think I see a problem with your reasoning: If it's correct to never fold on the river, then it's correct to never bluff. Following this, it would now be correct to fold.

--- Chris Callahan