This is incorrect, due to card removal effect. Neither player knows the other’s cards. Folding 100 percent of your blockers would lose money (as well as be silly exploitable).

As for Kelly, unless your stack is about 5 percent of your net worth, every +EV bet you could make on a poker table will be comfortably below Kelly Criterion.

This isn't true in the real game of poker. It's only true in so-called "toy games" where one player's polarized range consists of value hands that win 100% of the time, and bluffs that never win when called, and the other player's range consists solely of bluffcatchers.
In real games, both ranges contain lots of mid-strength hands. The "pure" bluff-catchers do indeed break even, so there's no harm in folding those (due to "indifference"), but you obviously don't fold the second nuts if villain's value-betting range contains the third nuts.

yea, this is obviously an idealized model, if you have blockers to the nuts, then ofc you shove, then player A is the one who is last in and must make a call. Player B can RAISE, and the roles are reversed, because now player A and player B have switched roles

this is obviously idealized, it obv depends on stack sizes, also, ICM skews this in tournaments

but, OP's premise is correct, theoretically, you are not supposed to ever call a river bet, we choose to make calls because we want to win and aren't satisfied with breaking even and also because most tables don't have stack sizes where you can raise fold rivers

in an idealized game of poker everyone would start with 300-500 BBs tho

in theory, tho, OPs premise is definitely correct, there should never be a flat call OTR in an idealized game

No. This is the theory forum. So, when you say “in theory yadda yadda” you have to back it up. Also, I can not tell from your posts that you have even read the thread.

When you have a bluff catcher with a good blocker, you call. There is such a thing as a call range, in theory and in reality.

Are you just trolling?
If calling is profitable, you absolutely should be calling.

(hands that can beat a bluff) + (hands that can beat some value hands but not enough to raise) + (hands that can raise for value) + (hands that can raise as a bluff) = X

X = total range to be used in mdf calc. (yes, hands that cannot beat a bluff are discarded without loss of ev or any need for accountability as these hands got to the river through +ev plays.)

In position, I agree, but making an mdf call from oop in a non-polar river requires the oop caller to discount his betting or checkraising combos since he did not bet or checkraise.

So the actual location of mdf for a pot sized river shove is lower in range when oop vs ip.

When I am in position, I can simply discard my potential bluffs, and call the top 1/3 of my range vs a 1x shove.

When I am oop, non-polar, and have checked river, mdf is 50th percentile combo.

Yes, pointing out the distinction between (a flop or turn calling range) and (a flop or turn betting range) followed by river action is an important difference as the range composition is very different.

a calling range is basically (draws, bluffcatchers, and slowplays)

a flop or turn betting range is (strong hands, draws, and the occasional pure bluff)

Note that the latter is much more polarized and as such the river rules are different. So if I've bet the flop and turn, called by the bb twice, then he donks the river? I'm folding a big chunk of my range because my busted draws that can't beat a bluff don't matter.

I think this is slightly off, depending on how many busted draws you should have in range that cannot beat a bluff.

I didnt mean this to be construed as trolling. I did misunderstand the OPS question. Seems he is doing well on every street but the river but there is not really a GTO on the river. If everyone played perfect GTO then the bettor would lay even money odds to the caller, and the caller is supposed to always fold or raise. Honestly it's just a simple and straightforward result from the fact that calling is always ev neutral. If that is the case, then variance control is the only profit. Therefore we should always raise or fold rivers and never call against a GTO player.

No one plays GTO on the river because we don't play to just break even but flat calling the river is exploitable.

Aside from the math, the person who actually calls the river more often when ahead is the winner of the game

Not trolling, just saying that theory states to fold or raise every river (ignoring stack sizes ofc)

You don't know what you're talking about.

No, you still have a call range when deep stacked.

You have every option available in the ‘poker rules’, remember?

Now, I am happy to go through some back and forth with you, provided that you really want to learn. But if you just want to make broadly incorrect statements about theory in the theory forum, that will not go so well.

calling is never profitable if it's always laying even money odds, it's ev neutral if the sizing is correct

it's a straightforward result, if player A has one bluff combo and one value combo in his range to bet the river and bets pot, Player B cannot change his average outcome. His ev is exactly zero no matter what he does. Raise, fold, call have the exact same value. GTO says fold because of the finiteness of your bankroll.

But why play theory on the river? If you are losing money on the river it's because your opponents are outplaying you

If you really want to construct lol toy games:

Player B holds one of the cards that are required for Player A to hold the bluff combo. Player A can not know this.

Player B calls.

Profit.

If player A bluffs 50% of the time as above, I would call with any hand that can beat a bluff getting 2:1 for decent profit.

1/3 pot investment ---> 50% pot return on investment = decent profit.

i dont think that is right.... i prefer a call if he has 1 combo of both

Nevermind that a villain would be overbluffing if he had a 1:1 ratio in that spot (it should be 2 value combos for each 1 combo of air, if a PSB is used), in what world does villain only bet 2 combos on the river?
In most river spots villain will have at least 3 combos of the nuts or 2nd nuts (but often more), but he'll also have maybe 30-40 combos of hands that can bet for value and get called by worse more than 50% of the time.
If you literally only bet 1 combo of the nuts and one bluff, you'd be leaving loads of money on the table.
Quick example: you open BTN v BB and bet and barrel on AK59. River is a 7. Are you only betting one combo of AA on the river (balanced with one combo of JTs or something), and are you checking back two combos of AA, and all 3 of KK and 9 of AK and another 9 each of A5 and A9?
Please don't be silly. You bet a LOT of combos, some of which are the near nuts, but many more that still win the majority of the time. You balance those by bluffing with an appropriate number of bluffs.
It can be the case that hero bets A5 on the river (hoping to get called by AJ etc) but villain binked a better two pairs with A9/A7, or flopped a set of fives. It would be idiotic for the BB to fold a set of fives on that runout, because it's so much better than a bluffcatcher. It beats many of the value-hands.
It would be completely ludicrous to fold 100% of his range. What would be the point of calling flop or turn (or even pre-flop) if he never calls the river? Your bluff-catchers break even and serve to make villain "indifferent" to bluffing with air, but better hands than bluff-catchers call on the river because they actually make a profit.

overbluffing is exploitable

it's simpler than that Artie, it's not complicated. I'm just giving you an idealized situation, and arguing that folding rivers 100% of the time (or raising with the nut or nut blocker) is the GTO response to the GTO of betting the river


if opponent is overbluffing he is not playing GTO, he is playing exploitably, and we can call more frequently, but if he is not overbluffing and his sizing lays us even money odds, and we don't have the nuts we should fold.

it's just a function of the fact that our bankroll is finite

prefer, not prefer, it doesn't matter, if you don't have the nuts and villain has one combo that beats you and one that doesn't you are supposed to fold rivers. the fact that you prefer to call is because you want to risk your money to make money, GTO doesn't have that restriction, it will seek highest profit/lowest variance, it's goal is technically to double the roll before busting and while you make exactly the same amount of money calling vs folding, you will double your roll more often by folding. this is pretty much the basis of all gambling using kelley criterion

this is honestly the skill part of the game and it does not surprise me that there are people that can play mathematically precise and win on every street but the river. the river is technically where all the the skill in poker is revealed

Why does GTO bring out the crazies?

What about mathematically precise players that crush every street? Those people exist. They do not overfold. FYI.

There isn't any value is further discussing the topic with an individual claiming that you should never call rivers.
@Arty
@Robert

Hahahahahaha
I guess this is not the best post either.
This thread is great.

Edit: I only read the first ten posts. I did not even know there was another 20 or so.

hmmmm....i was just mentioning a mathematical artifact that really has no use in the real world, it's interesting for the pure math but it doesn't mean anything. Maybe mathematicians are crazy tho so maybe that's why, i dunno

you seem extremely mean and thuggish in this thread, no advice except trolling, i wonder what your other posts look like, meh, nevermind i don't care

KT,

It's one thing to stand by your posts.

It's quite another thing to never admit that you're wrong.

Pretty much everyone here agrees that folding 100% of pure bluffcatchers is incorrect, despite there being no loss of value vs gto. This is exactly because folding this much is highly exploitable, thus it's not good poker. If you actually adhered to this folding frequency, your opponent could bluff more on every single round of betting.

I agree Bob. Playing GTO on the river is not good poker. I think my argument states exactly why. GTO says to fold the river 100% (or raise with nut blockers). It's merely a mathematical quirk, but it is true. I stand by my advice. Forget about GTO on the river.

I think it would be more understandable if I said GTO says to raise or fold the river and never call, but it's mathematically the same as saying fold 100% of rivers, and it's just a mathematical oddity but it is definitely true.

This is incorrect. If you want to say bankroll management is the game you're playing then GTO would say then don't play the game at all not fold the rivers.

If you sit down and play the game, the GTO strategy is to call with a frequency that is equal to the frequency your opponent bluffs.

If you do not you actually 'cost' yourself the equity you surrender in the pot, which is non-zero.

Not a perfect to say 'cost' because typically in the toy games folding is EV 0 so you don't actually lose anymore money from your stack and the pot was just magically there with money it.

In real life you do lose money always by not calling, though, because you contributed money to the pot to see the river.