As played fold, that being said I would desperately try to never put myself in that spot. Def lead this flop if raised once gii if 3 bet on flop you can fold. You have virtually nothing in the pot right now and you are basicly putting your stack in possibly 3 way with a draw without all your outs.

If you are really perceived as a nit, you should shove because once in a while someone will make some absurd fold and you block top set. (I assume you have a value shove range here, and this is one of the best hands to balance it with.)

Given u x the flop, Folding+1 here.

You are playing to win over a session, not just this one pot. How the hand has played out and your position, your hand is not as easy to play as many thinks. The chances that your tptk is good is slim, If any one person holds a fd, u have less outs against any over pairs/2p/sets hands. Having a j blocker does help but I don't think it's enough to warrant a gamble here. U only have 40$ in the pot, fold and observe this hand/get information and find a better spot later


But I would have just cbet this flop for the heck of it

Posting 'find a better spot' should result in an insta ban imo.

If you decide you get it in here, don't shove. Make it 1500 and call off.

Well, "once in a while" absurd folds translate to "very very rarely" which also translates to "-EV spot to try to (semi)bluff". Even though it has happened before, I am usually right to expect that no one folds sets to me, even with my image.

In this spot, especially in live poker, there isn't really a need to balance.

What I did on the flop:

I generally agree with this (and always have), but lately I've been thinking a little more about it. I know in hu freezouts I pass on a decent amount of +ev spots/I slam the brakes on variance if I think my opponent is terrible. Should any of this type of thinking be applied to when you are in a really soft fr game and if you double your opponent he will likely leave? And then if he leaves, maybe other spots will leave as well? But if you stack him he also leaves? Or maybe the game likely gets better if you stack him and he also won't leave if he doubles (game gets better that way too)- in this case should you actually be willing to take the worst of it a decent amount???

How about if stacking/doubling him likely changes very little about the game lineup/conditions- are you potentially just losing money (in theory) in every tiny edge spot (assuming you have a massive edge in the game overall)? Similar to how Bill Gates loses money if stops walking, reaches down and picks up a stray $100 bill on the ground?

How about the emotional ramifications of losing a big pot? Do you play worse in general after you lose a buyin? How do you play after you win a buyin? How does your opponent play in each of those situations? What kind of stack is ideal for the game conditions/your seat? Etc, etc, etc...

Almost all pros will say, "If it's + ev, do it. End of story."

Very nice post.

Passing up spots in a HU SNG can definitely be the right call. In this case playing a lower style actually increases your EV. But in cash, when you are playing with a deep bankroll, I don't think there are all that many +EV spots you should be missing out on. If you guys can think of some, I'd be interested to hear them.

In the example you provided, it's possible fish might leave after getting sucked out on (making a zero EV gamble a bad play), but it's also possible that the fish might tilt off five buyins after you suck out on his top set. In the latter case, we should definitely be taking a 0EV gamble.

There are a few spots where I like passing up on a small edge: You are playing a soft game and it folds to you in the sb. While our weakest opens could be +EV, me may actually be lowering our hourlies by slowing the game down for a measly .1 bb in EV.

I think the more important point you brought up was how we play after losing (or winning) a big pot. If we are prone to tilt after getting stacked (who isn't, to some extent), I can definitely see merit to passing up a slightly winning gamble (though if villains are more prone to tilt than us, maybe we should gamble anyway!). Similarly, I think it's fine to pass up on spots that may be slightly +EV but that require lots of thinking and/or concentration. (Flame away) Especially early in (long) sessions, I think it's important to preserve your 'mental energy.' Taking a bunch of close to 0EV spots early may put you a in state where you are a bit less likely to play your A game 5-10 hours later. Thoughts?

I think in general people overestimate how much they should adjust to big fish in the games. There's 7 other people in the game adjusting, counter-adjusting to your adjustments, and who will be involved in pots. You don't really get that many playable hands in FR NLHE, and the additional edge you get from him being in the games can get eaten up pretty quickly if you try to adjust in ways you are not comfortable with or used to, and end up making less precise decisions as a result. You also probably over-rate your ability to make a good guess about what conditions will cause someone you don't know to leave the game.

People get blinded by the opportunity to stack someone bad and log big wins, especially when their games are usually nitty or passive. Just play to win the most money on average and mop up the mistakes other regs are making swinging for the fences.

the beauty of poker is that no one actually knows about their EV in spots postflop until they do EV calcs.

Unless you are basically a genius, no one plays with an EV calc in their head.


so waiting for a better spot is actually tangible imo and exists on the poker table, especially under the circumstances you outlined.

Not that I would necessarily advocate it, but obviously no one is making the same decision that winds up to be (e.g.) -1.1BB after the fact.