Chart - EV of Calling on the River... (is folding as bad as we think?)

[MarkD]

[ QUOTE ]
Some people don't understand this. Most good players do. Folding the river for 1 bet is not a big mistake because it costs you the pot. Ed Miller, I believe, was simplifying a rule for the unwashed masses. Those of us that aspire to greater heights have to leave behind the comfortable (but -EV) river calls.

Krishan

[/ QUOTE ]

I always knew that what Ed said was an over simplification and understood that folding wasn't as big of a mistake as it was made out to be but until I saw this chart I didn't realize how close the mistakes of folding and calling really are. I didn't know they were of bsimilar magnitude. I was under the impression that folding was much less of a mistake than calling if you were off by the same percentage in either direction around the break even point. I had never done the calculation (I am not sure why - I guess I just blindly believed Sklansky and Miller on this and never explored it myself).

That's why this chart was such an eye opener for me.

Now I wonder why we still always talk about how we should call "because the pot is big" in this forum. I see it all the time, and I often say to myself "ayup, that's good reasoning".

I expect my fold river % to go up in future sessions. I also expect my EV to go up as a result since I will be listening to my reads more. If my reads are wrong, so be it, at least I will be using them.

[Wynton]

I'm going to use this thread as an opportunity to repeat a question I haven't yet been able to elicit an answer for: how do we know what the "correct" number is for folding at the river?

Is the concensus view simply based on the numbers respected players have generated, or is there any mathematical basis for the opinions about how often (or how rarely) one should fold at the river?

[imitation]

I guess the reason we say call because the pot is big is because very rarely can we be so sure of our "reads" online, a 4% difference is very difficult to really identify. Given the very random nature of many peoples play makes it difficult to accurately pick a number that really is our pot odds for calling on the river, and Ed and Sklansky's idea is that generally for this reason it's better to call than fold because it's more often correct (which I think we know it is). Also for metagame reasons that I think are difficult to quantify many people have built a game around not folding much on the river.

[ QUOTE ]
I guess the reason we say call because the pot is big is because very rarely can we be so sure of our "reads" online, a 4% difference is very difficult to really identify. Given the very random nature of many peoples play makes it difficult to accurately pick a number that really is our pot odds for calling on the river, and Ed and Sklansky's idea is that generally for this reason it's better to call than fold because it's more often correct (which I think we know it is). Also for metagame reasons that I think are difficult to quantify many people have built a game around not folding much on the river.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with this, and that Ed Miller's idea of calling "because the pot is big" is a pretty good reason. Obviously there are times where a fold is easy. But looking at the chart, its very very hard to calculate with certainty your exact chances of winning the pot to make the correct +EV decision. Since it will often be close, it is always better to err on the side of calling. This is because if opponents see you folding many rivers, it encourages them to bluff at you when for example they missed a draw they have been playing stronly. The increased chances of your opponents bluffing makes it even harder to calculate your exact winning %, which causes us to make even more mistakes.

[imitation]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I guess the reason we say call because the pot is big is because very rarely can we be so sure of our "reads" online, a 4% difference is very difficult to really identify. Given the very random nature of many peoples play makes it difficult to accurately pick a number that really is our pot odds for calling on the river, and Ed and Sklansky's idea is that generally for this reason it's better to call than fold because it's more often correct (which I think we know it is). Also for metagame reasons that I think are difficult to quantify many people have built a game around not folding much on the river.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with this, and that Ed Miller's idea of calling "because the pot is big" is a pretty good reason. Obviously there are times where a fold is easy. But looking at the chart, its very very hard to calculate with certainty your exact chances of winning the pot to make the correct +EV decision. Since it will often be close, it is always better to err on the side of calling. This is because if opponents see you folding many rivers, it encourages them to bluff at you when for example they missed a draw they have been playing stronly. The increased chances of your opponents bluffing makes it even harder to calculate your exact winning %, which causes us to make even more mistakes.

[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly.

[Surfbullet]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I guess the reason we say call because the pot is big is because very rarely can we be so sure of our "reads" online, a 4% difference is very difficult to really identify. Given the very random nature of many peoples play makes it difficult to accurately pick a number that really is our pot odds for calling on the river, and Ed and Sklansky's idea is that generally for this reason it's better to call than fold because it's more often correct (which I think we know it is). Also for metagame reasons that I think are difficult to quantify many people have built a game around not folding much on the river.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with this, and that Ed Miller's idea of calling "because the pot is big" is a pretty good reason. Obviously there are times where a fold is easy. But looking at the chart, its very very hard to calculate with certainty your exact chances of winning the pot to make the correct +EV decision. Since it will often be close, it is always better to err on the side of calling. This is because if opponents see you folding many rivers, it encourages them to bluff at you when for example they missed a draw they have been playing stronly. The increased chances of your opponents bluffing makes it even harder to calculate your exact winning %, which causes us to make even more mistakes.

[/ QUOTE ]

IMO this is more of an argument for a showdown-oriented game than for not folding on the river... I think players here(and everywhere!) pay off river raises far too lightly for "metagame" reasons, when pure bluff-raises or bluff-3bets on the river are in actuality quite rare... and writing it off to "metagame" is not a good excuse for lax hand-reading and proper estimation of the %age that we are behind given the aciton + the board.

Surf

[Surfbullet]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm going to use this thread as an opportunity to repeat a question I haven't yet been able to elicit an answer for: how do we know what the "correct" number is for folding at the river?

Is the concensus view simply based on the numbers respected players have generated, or is there any mathematical basis for the opinions about how often (or how rarely) one should fold at the river?

[/ QUOTE ]

from my understanding of it this stems from a "look at him, he's good, wins alot, and folds xx%. that's probably best"-type thing. certainly FRB should be lower at 6max than full ring b/c we are folding less in general, but your playstyle weighs heavily on this.

Players like Josh who check behind on the turn to call river bets in aggressive games will have a much lower FRB than someone like me who fires again often, so if i'm faced with river aggression it's usually a c/r or a donkbet after a free SD raise which I can usually confidently fold to. Reads change this pretty significantly, as do the games you play in...the party 20/40 i fold much less than I do at UB 10/20.

Surf