|
|
 Originally Posted by Revolver123
Originally Posted by Illfavor
Originally Posted by Revolver123
What's wrong with it? If you're against a loose player who is clearly on a flush draw, it's wrong to overbet on a street to prevent him from getting it? Why?
Go to the BC Digest, and read the article about how we cannot make someone fold. We can only give them two decisions, mistake or fold. Think about it. If you bet $5 into a $3 pot, does that make it less likely for the draw to be completed? The cards fall regardless of our actions. And trying to force them to fold is dumb. If he's gonna call with those terrible odds then we should jump in the air heehee hooray! Overbetting is stupid unless you have a specific read that says he will call really large bets really lightly, then you valuetown his ass until he stops rebuying.
This all relates to the Fundamental Theorem of Poker. Learn it. Love it.
I've read that numerous times but I've seen numerous posts on here giving advice to bet 1.5x the pot on a certain street or to shove all-in on a certain street, which would be way more than the pot but it's getting your money in. So by this logic, if a guy only has a 35% chance to hit his flush, isn't the common advice on this site to get all your money in on this scenario? I' m sure I can pull up a ton of posts that signify this.
Correct me if im wrong, but once the moeny goes in, the decisions are over. The EV is already tallied, the rest is up to the poker gods. You've already commited him toa huge mistake by getting him to put his money in as a dog. But, if he only calls a certain size bet and doesnt hit, he can get away from it, thus minimizing his -EV. But if he DOES hit, he can make up for lost EV earlier in the hand by getting you to put the rest of your money in if he does, in fact, hit.
|
