If you're going to make a snarky one line reply, you should at least be right.


Folding is never -ev.

Also if you are to play, four betting is probably a better approach than calling, although both are -ev. When you four bet you stand a very good chance of getting it heads up and then taking down a sizeable pot when your opponent whiff's the flop. The problem is you're going to have to bet, commiting yourself, and then stack off every time you're a dog or a flip and when are the huge equity favourite all you get is what your opponent put in preflop. When you flat, you're now in a much higher SPR situation, you're out of position and you have a hand that is not going to flop much most of the time. Good luck making money in that spot.

OmahaFanatical,

What do you propose the bb/100 winrate of calling is? 4betting? folding?

Folding is clearly 0. The other two I am not equipped to answer.

you're wrong

we're in the sb which would mean we lose under your definition of -ev

folding is always zero ev when you are not in the blinds, but that doesn't mean that the decision to fold is not -ev

if you are folding aakkds here, is that not -ev?

Kinf of annoying to respond to this but i've seen you post this in ssplo before, and that's just bad information to hand out when you seem as sure of yourself as you are

lolarguingsemantics in hsplo thread

A clever attempt, but no, you were wrong, just be a man and admit it. I don't even want to attempt to parse the tortured logic that constitutes your last statement in this thread. Folding is always neutral ev.

Let's try a different example. You bet $10, villian raises you to $30. What is the expected value of folding in this situation?

Hint : it's not -$10.

Either way this is a semantic discussion and not really relevant to the OP.

I'm really not going to explain to you how a fold can ever be + or - ev

Well, it's impossible for a fold to have a negative or positive expectation, so I'm glad you're not going to try to attempt to do that.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G2y8Sx4B2Sk

It's a semantic discussion and not really healthy to most poker discussions either, since there can be pretty significant opportunity cost tied to folding. If every other option yields positive expected value and folding is neutral ev, then the act of folding in a vacuum is neutral, but negative expected value compared to other available options.

So in a game with no rake I could fold forever and not lose money?

worst ***** thread derail ever

is 4-betting a non-PSB an option?

Also how is calling 450 with 8k left not enough to set mine?

Almost 100% of he time if the op described the players as being goods e winning. the first player is going to call a re-raise, now what percent of the time does player 2 call having position now after the flop? I'd say pretty high.were three handed with about 3450 in the pot. Your first to act, what percent of the time does the flop favor you in which you can lead out ??? With two great players behind and were a Nit. Just calling is my favorite move here. Like I said. You do not have to get crazy with this scenario. You ought to be to find a better scenario with that 3450$. This is the way I believe the hand would have played out.

The whole hand comes down to a flop with two good players behind as neither 2 are folding pre. I just don't understand how you like this position.

Not sure we actually like this situation, but then again, deep stacked OOP to two decent players means that even with premium aces, we don't *like* the situation that much unless the flop helped us in some way. Deep stacked PLO is very much about the flop and position, that is the nature of the beast.

Having said that, folding is very much an non-option here, neither is raising as we are bloating up the pot, but not enough to be committed, and we seldom flop well enough to play against two decent players with position on us. So a call seems the best option. We have enough implied odds to set mine, with the benefit of a well-disguised top set should we be lucky enough to flop it, plus we could put our ace blockers to good use on suitable boards. Of course, if the pot gets raiesd again preflop, we can then put in another reraise to get committed... even trash aces do well if we can get committed preflop.

I have been thinking hard, and I cannot understand why folding is ever an option. Could those who advocate folding this hand preflop please expand their argument a little to put me out of my misery?

I'm not folding pre but the spot isn't ludicrously deep stacked, it's 170bigs (actually 25/25/50). Again not entirely sure 4betting is golden but there are going to be a reasonable amount of flops where we can stack off, rather than Axx. Clearly reasonable arguments have been made for calling but its not cut and dry.

Never?

You have xxxx, with 1000 in your stack...a raising war resulted in you raising it to 950 preflop, and your opponent flats...

Now surely folding on any flop is -EV (when compared to open-pushing/calling)?

In that scenario, a fold is the lesser EV option. The action in itself is neutral EV because you're not losing any money nor winning any.

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/sh...2&postcount=35

I offer you a coin flip. Heads you win 1900. Tails you lose 50.

What's the EV of not taking the flip?

If you don't take the flip once, how much money will you win or lose?

If you don't take the flip 100 times, how much money will you win or lose?


Let's all just admit I am right and move on plz.

Damnit i keep checking this thread hoping for answers but it keeps getting bumped by a completely pointless semantic discussion

But surely to give up on a +EV situation is by definition, -EV?

OmahaFanatical4,

I never asked you about the EV. I asked about bb/100 winrate.

Very interesting hand, I cant understand the horrible derail about something that is so obvious.

I think I call and go from there, lots of flops we can c/r lots of flops we can c/c. And even just setvalue has to be pretty high.
And if flop happens to be suited to any of our aces it has to be profitable to just start leading and set up for river shove. I mean how could we ever be percieved to have any naked A blockers after preflop? Same goes for any kind of flush scenario i guess.

AA82r I would fold i think.

There is no connectivity with the 87, so all you can really hope to flop is a straight, top set, trips or openended / gutshot + overpair. Even if you flop 33x, both of these guys are pretty wide so you can't really be that sure you are good and you have a bad implied odds situation because there is decent SPR. Obv. flopping a straight is very rare, flopping top set happens 7.5:1 and that's great but nit cold calls pre and then c/r Axx flop it's not going to take much for these solid winning players to deduce what you have and why you didn't four bet. You're going to be 3 handed, out of position, squeezed between 3 better and initial raiser, with a hand that is not going to flop much most of the time.

So what's the plan? Go to war on dry flops? Try to rep nut flush draw? I find it difficult enough to win when I actually have the nut flush draw, let alone just by pretending I have it. Another thing is, this is live. So you have to face that you might give off some weakness tells when you are bluffing for 8k and get snapped off. It's really not easy to put that much money in the middle and not give off some sign that you are terrified as **** that they might call. Lots of high stakes players make lots of money because they are very good at knowing when someone is afraid.

basically your only hope is catch a miracle flop, flop top set, or pray that the initial raiser 4 bets. These things aren't going to happen often enough to make up for all the times you lose $450 OR WORSE, make a big play on a decent looking flop and then lose your stack.

You have to acknowledge your positional disadvantage.

No, I cannot admit that you are right, because you are not...if I refuse your odds of 38 to 1 when the true odds of the event are even money, then I'd be LOSING my positive expectation, and therefore it is -EV for me not to flip.

Plus in terms of poker, there are such things are forced bets (the blinds and/or antes). If what you say is correct in that folding yields no negative expectations, then we would never lose if we fold 100% of the time in a rake-free game? Are you sure that is what you trying to say?