Hello all.

Rather whimsically, I was wondering if there are any absolute principles in NLHE, ie. actions or spots where there is only one 'correct' way of progressing. As an example, it can sometimes be correct to fold pocket aces pre-flop in NLHE. Therefore "never fold AA pre-flop" is not an absolute principle in NLHE. I can only think of one principle that might be true in all circumstances:

1. Never fold the nuts on the river

I can't think of any situation where you'd fold the absolute nuts, but would be interested if anyone can think of such a situation.

Any other absolutes? Purely a thought exercise.

folding aces pre can only be good, afaik, in tournament situations where chipEV != $EV.

but if you want to consider arbitrary pay-out structures, pretty much anything can be good, including folding nuts on the river.

you might be interested in the discussion surrounding the term 'dominated strategy' in the theory terminology sticky.

folding the nuts on the river if you're sure you're going to split and lose to rake, e.g. TJQKAr board with 3bb in the pot and someone shoves 100 BB into that...

Considering some of the rake structures around the world I imagine this spot might be more common than the pre-flop aces example.

Thanks guys; some interesting stuff.

Oh yes: good thinking!

Can also be logical to fold AA pre-flop in cash games: the example I'm thinking of is a slightly unusual set-up they used in a pro-am TV show called "The Big Game". It was a fixed 150 hand cash game, with one $100,000 staked amateur and 5 pros. The amateur folded aces pre-flop because he was massively up, knew he was out-classed in his post-flop play, and wanted to preserve his winnings. It was this action that got me thinking about the topic of this thread.

However I think I have a new absolute:

1. Never fold the nuts on the river if it is impossible for the pot to be split (eg. you have the nut flush)

Any counter-proofs?

If it was nlhe I'm pretty sure he'd have shoved. It was plhe at that time.

Also, if you include meta-game stuff you're never going to have an absolute. Lets say the biggest fish ever to play in your regular game is having his worst night ever and you're pretty sure he is going to quit for good if he doesn't at least drag a small pot or two to end this terrible session, it might be right to fold the non-chopable nuts to him. Same thing if you're playing somebody like your future father in law or maybe your boss in a low stakes game...

ETA - If you actually want something close to an absolute it'd probably involve not calling with nut lows but in nlhe it's pretty much always possible to be at least tying. If you changed it to "poker" there are games where you can have a hand that can't possibly win or even tie, in that case you should pretty much never just call.

I guess when you allow for rake you could fold aces pre-flop in a cash game if you were 100% certain that the other guy was shoving with aces.

That's just dumb/super scared money. In a cash game if you don't wanna play AA, you just shove pre and get whatever is out there so far.

That's exactly what it was. He was up a lot of money at that stage.

The guy in question would of lost to quads aswell. Still, super crazy fold, but he didn't think it was worth the risk.

You can't be results orientated, however, it was like 3 years teaching salary to him, so I can understand why he just completely shut down after he won the money.

I don't really think that's a "cash game". He only gets to keep the money he is up, right? He's playing a weird pseudo cash game. The chip values are skewed for him. Also, the thread title says NLHE. That isn't NLHE.

If you are willing to entertain implausible outside-the-game scenarios, then you will never have an absolute...The kidnapper who has taken my wife hostage is demanding that I play poker tonight, but that I can't go all-in preflop with aces.

Heads up cash you have $101 effective stacks. Blinds 50/100. BB must call shove ATC at about any rake you could reasonably expect. What is more interesting is if you frame question to exclude rake or any other factors eg tourney icm that mean that chips are not of equal value.

How about this absolute:

If you are last to act on the river and it is checked to you and you have the nuts, you should always bet.

Exactly, the fact that in real life, more money doesn't correlate linearly with more utility means that a lot of mathematically +ev plays will be -ev in real terms.

I'd still question the fold, even accounting for that, but only he could tell us if it was a good decision or not.