Lee Jones on game theory??

[fritzwar]

On p.146 of the new edition of Lee Jones' *Winning Low Limit Holdem* Jones is discussing heads up river play when first to act. He says:

"If you are betting a strong one-pair hand and get raised on the river (in a heads-up pot), you should call virually all the time. In fact, here's a good rule: If [heads up] you bet an overpair or top pair with an ace or king kicker and are raised always call. If you're going to fold in a situation like this, do it when you are making a 'thin' value bet. Perhaps you were betting second pair, or top pair with a very weak kicker. Even in those cases, you should fold only rarely -- perhaps 10% of the time."

And here the text has a footnote which says:

"The correct game-theoretical frequency is to fold one in N times where N is the number of big bets in the pot". [he gives an example then, saying that with 12 big bets in the pot, one should fold when raise 1/12 of the time in "situations such as you are in".]

Question -- what is Jones talking about here? What "game-theoretical result" does he think gives the result that the correct fold percentage here is 1/N?
Given that the range of hands he's talking about includes everything from overpairs down to top pair/weak kicker and 2nd pair/good kicker I sincerely doubt that any "game-theoretical" result delivers folding advice of the sort he gives with this formula.

Are there further unstated assumptions that get this result for him or is this another case of a poker author gesturing at "game theory" without a firm foundation?

[deacsoft]

I believe he's trying to state that you, in fact, only need to be right 1 out of 12 times for your play to be profitable in that situation.

[fritzwar]

thanks for the reply.

If that's what he's trying to say (and I agree it's a quite reasonable interpretation) then:

(a) he would have been far better off just offering this fact as a reason for calling the raise and avoiding the "game-theoretical" talk altogether

because

(b) the fact that calling the raise only needs to win 1 time in 12 or better is not equivalent to the claim that you should fold 1 time in 12.

[deacsoft]

If you're still fuzzy on it you can e-mail him at
jonesleeh@aol.com
I've e-mailed him before and he has always been very kind and punctual with his replies.

[Rudbaeck]

I don't know why he thinks his theory is correct, but I can tell you how he reached it. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

He read the game theory chapters in Theory of Poker, thought the argument for optimal bluffing was transitive and hence is talking in his nightcap. (Villain should bluff 1 in 12 here if he doesn't have a read on you. That obviously doesn't translate into you folding 1 in 12!)