Quote:
Originally Posted by BigBlue56
If I'm next to act, I'm probably waiting to clarify your specific action, as not to give away information. However, if I'm planning to fold when you call/raise, then I may not pay attention to whether you call or raise and simply fold after you act. When that act is a fold, and I would have called, I'll be a little upset at myself for not being careful. That's on me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lord_Crispen
Maybe I'm reading this wrong, but you should never be folding until action in front of you is clarified. Folding after the player to your right says "Raise" before announcing the amount can influence his action and can also start a cascade of action behind.
Yes, I'm waiting until the player has acted, even if I don't know the
exact action. I recognize that giving a player the knowledge that one less player is going to call is unfair to those left to act. Once I know I'm going to fold, I do my best not to give that information away until the action is on me. However, if there was a bet and I'm going to fold to a call/raise by the player on my right, it's not important for me to determine if the player is calling or raising, or the amount of the raise, just that I wait to fold.
If player on my right picks chips from a prior bet, ends up putting the chips back and folding, there is a nonzero chance that I assume they have made that call/raise, their action is complete and I'm folding. Yes, most of the time I expect to notice that they haven't put more chips in (to call/raise) and have folded/mucked their cards.
That player now folding, may give me a reason to call/raise myself. Can I quickly deduce what cards might have given a player cause to think about calling/raising and then fold? Can I use that to narrow a range from the aggressor and determine that my best play is to call/riase? Sure, at least sometimes.
Mostly table talk, but lots of players comment that they are glad Player B called, because now they can fold and would have felt they had to call.