|
|
 Originally Posted by daviddem
In the hand above, when you decide whether to call on the flop, you pretty much have to decide whether you want to play for all the remaining chips in the remaining effective stack or not. A way to see it, although it's a bit extreme of course, is to pretend that your opponent went all-in on the flop. If he had done that, would you still call?
The reason is that if you think that he is likely to continue betting on further streets, especially small bets, then you will be compelled to keep calling (as you did). That is why you have to make your commitment decision on the flop.
I never thought of it that way but that makes a lot of sense, thanks.
I'm guessing this has a lot to do with why chasing draws is so unprofitable? Maybe you're getting the right odds on the flop, but you have to consider missing the turn and then being faced with calling another bet. It reminds me of Effective Odds from The Theory of Poker(?)
It also seems like this is related to situations where you flop mid or top set and are bet into pretty large, or you're the bettor and get raised, but pretty sure you have the best hand, and just shove rather than call and play street by street b/c by the time the river comes your stack and opp's stack would be in the middle anyway.
|
Reply With Quote