Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob148
The main theme I'm trying to present is this:
If I think I have a close decision on the flop, and the turn does not help me in any way, then I think this makes the turn a clear fold.
This theme also extends to the turn: if I think I have a close decision on the turn, and the river does not help me in any way, then I think this makes the river a clear fold.
I had a longer answer, but I've decided to just give a short answer. It seems to me that "does not help me in any way" is doing all of the heavy lifting for you.
Put very simply, on both the flop and the turn, it's possible to classify the next street as being either "good" cards and "bad" cards. The "good" cards are the cards that will allow you to continue with your hand and the "bad" cards are the ones that will lead you to fold.
When you make your decision, you're weighing the balance of EVs for all those possible situations. On the next street, you're looking at the EV of the specific situation that you are in. So it seems it would be uncontroversial that if your first decision is close, that if one of the "bad" cards falls on the next street (that is, a card that "does not help [you] in any way") then you should fold. Not only is it a "bad" card, but based on the wording you've provided (not a help in *any* way), it seems to suggest that it is among the worst of the "bad" cards.
Quote:
This is contrary to the (imo overused) statement that gets thrown around "if you call the x you have to call the y."
I don't know what you think this statement means or how you think it's used, so an example to provide context would be helpful.