You're always taught not to be a calling station and there are good reasons for this. However, I want to make a case for why I choose to be a calling station (sometimes!).


1. Low stake players are bad at telling false stories. Every hand is a story and at the low levels, good hands are usually very transparent. The story makes sense and you find the folds. However, when stories don't make sense, I tend to err on the side of calling. I've found that at low states, players just randomly decide to bluff without figuring out what they are repping, and consequently, the stories don't add up. When put in this position, I like to call.

2. I'm white, tall/skinny, wear glasses, and somewhat nerdy looking. I feel like people try to bluff me a lot and when bluffing frequency is high, it makes sense to call more.

3. There is a lot gained by giving off a "god mode" image. When you call someone down with A-high or 4th pair and you have to show, people act like you have this godlike aura. So, strict pot odd calculations do not account for the added value in being able to garner this god mode.

4. There is more gained from a big stack than the chips lost when you have to rebuy. In California, there are low buyins and sometimes I find it beneficial to take marginally -ev situations because the potential for return is much greater when I have a larger stack. In other words, I can make up this slightly -ev situation (and more) should I happen to win and have a large stack.

5. There is information to be gained when people have to show down their hands. Suppose I'm in a situation where I think the math is very close but might slightly lean toward a fold. I may still call because they information gained has value too, and this might tilt the scale the other way.

6. When you're 1) in a lot of hands that 2) go to showdown and 3) people don't like your plays, then there is added value in the image. Almost nothing better is making some sick calls and building a large stack by what people think are "donk" plays, and then having people think you're an idiot when you're 400bb deep. I can't tell you how many times someone has shoved 300bb into the middle with TPTK, because I made a questionable call when I was 75bb deep.

7. Low stake players are terrible at bet sizing and often give odds that are too good. Suppose I have a naked flush draw and someone bets 3/4 pot on the flop. I should fold. However, I may very well call. Why? Few reasons: 1) These players will often inexplicably check through on the turn or bet ridiculously small. 2) Even when they suspect I'm on a draw, it is like they can't help themselves buy payoff when it hits, so the implied odds are pretty large. 3) I enjoy being berated for calling a 3/4 pot sized bet on the flop, knowing that I only had to call a 1/4 pot sized bet on the turn, and then got to collect a full pot size bet on the river when my hand got there.


I think those are my basic reasons. I'm not arguing that we should become passive players and get owned for calling down light. I am, however, of the opinion that there is some added value in making questionable calls that should be considered in our mental equations.


My two cents,
DUCY

i agree

You should not be a calling station, you should however sometimes act like one if the table conditions make that the most EV line.

Like I said, it's not always being a calling station, but there are times when it makes more sense.

I'm only a calling station when being a station for that particular situation against that particular villain is +EV.

One of the hardest parts about becoming not only a winning player but a player that absolutely DESTROYS the game is understanding how to quantify the exact nature of the situations that require atypical lines.

Our thinking needs to incorporate and identify: table tendencies (i.e. what preflop raises are called, what raises are viewed as pot builder raises, how often are hands being check raised), villain tendencies, 3-bet frequencies, bet sizing, position vs raisers, ranges, who value bets, player profiles (who is the nit, TAG, LAG, rec-fish, ABC, etc players) and our perceived image to name a few...

We take all of the above and incorporate it into our decision making processes. If the dynamics are such, and our villain has a high enough bluff frequency and a wide enough range and reliable sizing tells then absolutely we can and should station them. And we should be able to back up our decision with solid math/arguments.

My only critical comment about the Original Post is that it has a "quasi" feel aspect to it that I don't really like. But I can agree with the overall gist of it, as long as we are ONLY calling in situations that we can justify as +EV given the various factors I've mentioned above...

I'm not a feel player at all, but I can see where you get that. I think that without a HUD (live play), we aren't going to have exact numbers when it comes to bluff frequencies. I might be able to tell you that against a particular villain his bluff/value frequency is approximately 33:67 in a certain situation, but we simply don't have enough good data to know that. It could be as low as 20:80 or as high as 45:55. An example, dgi: when you explain to BQ how they cannot know their true winrate after 200 hours, you're acknowledging that they simply do not have enough data to make the math accurate. The same is true against our villains. For this reason, our margin of error is pretty wide and this is probably what you're picking up when you describe a quasi feel component.