|
|
|
|
#1
12-21-2005, 08:35 AM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: River folds are cool atm.
Oops, you're right, it wasn't really a donk. OK, I'm amending my new rule:
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. This rule is certainly more questionable than the rule you stated in a post yesterday that you don't bet / fold the river, but I still like it. If it's not neutral or slightly positive ev at the time, it will be for picking off/discouraging bluffs. 
|
|
#2
12-21-2005, 08:50 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: River folds are cool atm.
[ 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
|
|
#4
12-21-2005, 12:53 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: River folds are cool atm.
[ 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
|
|
#5
12-21-2005, 01:11 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: River folds are cool atm.
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).
|
|
#6
12-21-2005, 01:21 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: River folds are cool atm.
[ 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?
|
|
#7
12-21-2005, 02:45 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: River folds are cool atm.
[ 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.
|
|
#8
12-21-2005, 09:16 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: River folds are cool atm.
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.
|
 |
|
|
Hybrid Mode
