|
 Originally Posted by jyms
 Originally Posted by Keith_MM
i would say the biggest earner is to call the bluff, the biggest loser to call the made better hand ,and makingthe poorer should win us the pot there .
the trouble i have is allocating relative chances of a bluff and the better made hand.
I never mentioned better hands in my choices because were obviously putting in one bet either way. We win or lose depending on hand strength if we bet first. The trick is to get more hands to pay us when we're the better hand. We can't do that by folding out worse hands by putting in that one bet on a scare card.
Wow thanks for splitting out this question. It's one I've struggled and thought about for a long time. jyms, I understand what you are saying and your reasoning is very logical. But couldn't we make another logical argument for bet/fold? The clearest case (I think) is if our opponent is passive and bad (the usual case in the micro-limits).
Reasoning for bet/fold: We can very well be ahead. If we bet a small amount, say 1/4 of the pot, he'll call if he has a weak holding; if we don't bet, he'll check behind his weak holdings and bet his strong ones (e.g. if the scare card actually helped him and he has made his straight or flush). If we bet, he'll raise us and we can fold. Suppose that we are ahead with probability p. So, if p > 1/2, this gains us money versus check/calling against this opponent.....Granted maybe this opponent is not that common; i.e. one that NEVER bets when checked to on the river after being bet into on 2 previous streets.......but it might be an illustration that the type of opponent might have a bearing on the decision process of bet/folding or check/calling.....no?
I'm probably way off base here.....these decision processes are much clearer/easier in limit hold'em.
|