I haven't read the whole thread yet so I might be repeating what others have said.

When you somehow know the other persons cards and are +EV, no matter how small the edge, you must take it. Probability dictates this and in the long run passing up these spots will cost you a lot of money. eg: calling $100 into a $1 pot when you are 50/50 is +EV and so not calling this will cost you lots of money. It is often hard to determine that you have an edge, however when the edge is so small.

When people say wait for a better spot, I don't think they mean this spot is +EV but wait for a more +EV situation. They probably mean that in this spot against part of his range it is slightly +EV and against part of his range it is -EV. On average it is approximately EV neutral (marginally one way or the other). I generally don't call bets on "EV neutral" hands for 2 reasons:

1) First of all, there is always some money in the pot so I am almost always a mathematical underdog (although EV is still 0). I will lose the pot most of the time and since I tilt easily I will often get in a bad mental state when I lose which will cause me to lose future hands.

2) Secondly, fish often hit and run after a big all in win and since they will win this pot most of the time (since they are always a favourite, by calling them they will often win the hand, leave the table and eliminate future large +EV situations for you.

The main reason I can see for calling is to set up a loose image for yourself for future hands (so they don't try to bluff you etc.)

In poker, thinking players should be thinking ahead to future streets and have a plan for the hand. A lot of poker is betting amounts on all streets to try and avoid these "marginal" situations where there is room for mistakes, although it does not always work out like that.

The psychological effects of tilt and poor bankroll management (if I can count that as a psychologocal effect) are things that should not be prevented by bad play: passing small edges (profits) to prevent losing bigger ones (from tilt). But should be solved by not tilting. While the argument holds, the solution is NOT to avoid the play, but to avoid the future plays (tilt).

Swings are down AND up. For every standard deviation there is a mathematical number that determines the part of your BR you can risk to get to infinity the fastes. For poker (I didn't check this, but it's calculated and accepted by many good players and has been used in all kinds of literature/articles) it's about 20 buyins. I believe this is when you do not pass any +EV situation (which yields the most profit).

Imagine a very safe game, where we are playing suboptimally, but profitably. Skipping a lot of small +EV situations, we'll have a small winrate on the end, but won't ever win big in the long run. On the other hand we won't have a large chance to go broke either.
Now there's the other extreme (of winning poker). We'll play too much and see too many showdowns. Sometimes we're just -EV, but most of the time +EV. On average we're +EV and along with huge swings we win a little. Obviously bad.

Both cases are winning, but there's a better/best game to play. In one case you leave money on the table by not taking the situations that will profit you a little bit in the long run. In the other you are taking too many -EV desicions. The best, obviously is to take every situation that is +EV and fold when that's the best alternative (0EV from here on to the end of the hand). We can expect the highest winrate and to get higher up/more profit in a shorter amount of time.

This last can't be argued by anyone that understands what's going on imo. What can be argued is how this hand will affect the game in later hands and How much DOWN variance we can endure. Remember, variance is both down AND up. We have more chance to go broke, we also have more chance to get lucky and run hot. There's the mathematical optimum to get rich the fastest that determines the amount of buyins we need to counter variance. The only thing that counts in the end (given a proper BR) is our average expectancy (winrate). If we can't endure a downswing we should play lower stakes instead of chosing a suboptimal game imo.

yes.

It could be both players are +EV. Suppose there is a pot of $1, we both have $1 stacks and 50% chance to win. If we go allin I expect 50% of $3 = $1.50 on average. So do you. See how we are both +EV going allin for $1?

You should always consider the entire range to determine if your decision is +EV or not.

In general: The more money in the pot, the better your EV. Check my first example in this post.
Tilting is something you shouldn't avoid in your game. It's something you should not do. I mean you should not avoid situations where you expect a profit, but could lose you more on future hands when you don't win. You should not lose that money in later hands instead.

It's one of the exceptions. When a fish leaves when he wins you can't get another shot at his chips. Therefore you can wait for a situation that will almost certainly come up when you have a better chance at all his chips. Note this argument only goes when he's the only fish you can find for a while. If there are plenty of fish it doesn't matter if he leaves... The next fish might aswell be him.

The main reason is that you win money in the long run.

While you should be thinking ahead, and would prefer situations where you are a big favorite. You should not avoid situations where you are a small favorite. Because these are ALSO profitable. The small favorite situations are not there instead of the big ones. They coexist and do not overlap. We can take either or both. I opt for both.

When you get to higher stakes your edge is signifcantly less lower so it is often recommended you should take advantage of any significant equity edge rather than a skill edge.

Saying "you're not properly rolled if you don't want to stack off with a tiny edge" is begging the question. For every edge, there is a bankroll that you need to be able to push it... the smaller the edge, the bigger the necessary bankroll.

For these marginal bankrolling situations, you want to maximize expected log(bankroll). You actually always want maximize this. EV is usually a good approximation, this argument comes up because it's not a good enough approximation here.

With a bankroll of 20 buy ins, 100BB stack, you shouldn't stack off BTN v BB pf with less than 51.13% chance of winning. (Solve for p in: p * log(1.05025) + (1-p) * log(.95) = 0 ). You're +EV, but your bankroll will dwindle in the long run.

If you can't beat the game without pushing 51% edges, then yes, drop down to lower stakes. But most winning players can still beat their game without pushing those edges, so they are winning less money by dropping down.

I agree with the nits on this one; sometimes you should wait for a better spot.

i dunno if anyone else said this, but if turning down a small edge in a coinflip means you can remain super deep with a fish, it might be +ev in the long run to keep your stack safe

nobody seems to take into account of rake here? suppose pot is $1, your opponets bets $100 and you are exactly 50/50 against him. even though calling is +ev but you're actually losing more money after taking rake into account

I like flipping. I don't know why people try to apply risk aversion strategies to poker. I like having big edges but I'll flip all day if that's what I gotta do.

Gambling is fun imo.

Edit: maybe it doesn't matter at micros, but I think people who give action tend to get action, and people notice when you're shipping stacks. Plus flipping is fun.

take into account if you're willing to gamble, it will make you harder to play against/will get your big hands paid off later. trust me they see what you are getting your money in with and they will adjust either correctly or incorrectly

your calculation is flawed in this sense: Your bankroll *might* dwindle in these situations but not necessarily true, either. You will be trying to get your money in the middle as a 50+% favorite vs your opponents' range and the majority of the time it will be much more clear than 50% so the more marginal decisions shouldn't really be affecting your bankroll. Also remember that "coolers" have a big factor in running good/bad and probably moreso than in marginally +EV situations. Based on the fact we can drop down from a limit and eventually return to our target limit based on our BB/100 at the previous one, we should be willing to accept the risk of getting it in marginally. Also as I said on the previous post, a mentality of taking every slightly +EV edge will give you more action on future hands.

Advertising a loose image is awesome. I love it. I do it. I recommend it to all my friends. If advertising is what we're talking about, then +EV isn't even a requirement.

OP is saying advertising is not part of his argument:

Consider the situation where it's the last hand of the night, with people you're never going to see again... then advertising is irrelevant. In this situation, expected log(bankroll) is your only consideration, not expected value. Sometimes very slight +EV gambles can be bad for your bankroll. That's all I'm saying.

It's standard advice at NL50 not only because of a lack of sophistication in Hero's understanding of poker, but also the villain's. Expert high limit players slumming in NL50 would not try these moves there (at least not as much), because it is moreso the latter than the former.

Wat if you are playing for fun??

lol what is that? This is the first time I've seen that since I posted it. I've developed so much as a poker player since then, thanks 2p2!

I really struggle to understand how some people are trying to justify passing up an edge in a cash game. I mean, 'theory of poker' is about the only book I have read properly, and my understanding is that you should be properly bankrolled and push every edge.

How can you turn down free money?


All these examples of 55 vs AKs etc AIPF, I mean if you KNOW the pot is going to be heads up, and you have factored in the rake, why would anyone pass that advantage? It is a tiny advantage but long run it adds up.

The really strange thing is the same players would call with QQ or even probably 99 when facing the same situation, yet the advantage in terms of % and +EV is still only marginal, which leads me to believe that it is more of a psychological issue, you guys can't handle calling off 100bbs with 55 and a tiny edge, but can cope calling it off with QQ and a similar edge, because you can then blame a loss on 'bad luck'.

Unless you are all total rocks, sitting around hoping to get it in with AA vs opponents AK.... or AK vs their AQ etc?

Poker is a game of skill, but it is also basically gambling. You have to gamble IMO, and as long as you are getting the money in where the odds are in your favor (+EV), then the results of an individual hand don't matter a great deal.

I havent read all the replies, but there is a post somehere in poker theory by sklansky where you are asked how often you fold JJ( or maybe some other hand. I cant remember) preflop against someone who autoshoves every hand.

Interesting read, and intuitively explains the real idea behind "finding a better spot"

"NO SUCH THING" is just a broad brushstroke, esp when you provide so many exceptions to the rule. And there are more..

In the sense that people overuse and abuse the term, I'm with you on that.

I will thread this.

The reason that you want, as a cash game player, take small edges against fish are the following:

- Table image, If you go to showdown more frequently with a small +EV situation people will consider you less tight and call you down/ thin valuebet you more often. This is +EV to people who can pay postflop.

- Profit, If you take more +EV edges and you're rolled fine than there's free money on the table. Obviously you don't know the exact range of your villain but that's where small +EV situation are also good for:
- You can determine ranges faster. The more showdowns the more read -> +EV

- You raise the average stack size, Let's say the fish busts and he re-buys. This makes the table more deep-stacked and you will profit more.

- You let the oppertunity to let the fish TILT, This is +EV for you because tilt is almost always bad. Tilt is +EV for you.


------------------------

+EV in money maby not that significant. +EV in situations is significant.

considering this is micro

wouldn't you need to be 52.5/47.5 to break even with a 5% rake?