A friend of mine got himself up in a situation similar to this one a long time ago and i want thoughts on it with good reasoning/pointing out flaws in my math. Reason im posting is cus i think its interesting to see if there is some siutations where you can fold the nuts on river.

SB is 15/11/3 over 1000 hands. Youre image is spewmonkey, as you just lost 2 all ins. It is NL25 on stars.

Poker Stars $0.25/$0.50 No Limit Hold'em - 8 players
The Official 2+2 Hand Converter Powered By DeucesCracked.com

MP1: $50.50
MP2: $50.00
CO: $47.00
BTN: $55.65
SB: $50.00
Hero (BB): $50.00
UTG: $31.15
UTG+1: $50.75

Pre Flop: ($0.75) Hero is BB with K 3
6 folds, SB calls $0.25, Hero checks

Flop: ($1.00) J A Q (2 players)
SB checks, Hero checks

Turn: ($1.00) 2 (2 players)
SB checks, Hero checks

River: ($1.00) T (2 players)
SB bets $49.5 all in

Now if you call and he also has the king, Pot will be 200 BB, Rake 10 BB, and you both end up at 95 BB back to your stack. LOSS: 4 BB.

If you call and he doesnt have the king, Pot will be 200 BB, rake 10 BB and you end up with a 190 BB stack. WIN: 91 BB

If you fold you end up at a 99 BB stack. WON/Loss: 0 bb


Now i dont have logic for the rest of the example but i THINK this is right:

91/4 = 22,75. OR 1-22,75 times.
100/22,75 = 4,39%.
100-4,39 = 95,61%.

If all is right now you need to be 95,61% sure he has a king for folding to be 0 EV.

Does this tag EVER push this river with random/a bluff in this situation? Do you call or fold?

even if I could see his cards I spite call

+1

That is wrong and giving away money.

But think about the VPPs

wrong but far more satisfying

I would fold if I could see his cards, but otherwise I'm never 95% sure of anything, in particular in poker. So I call.

Note that this is an example of a heads-up hand where the "Fundamental Theorem" fails.

I think never and he is trying to represent a bluff, i would stil fold this to a lag b/c the thinking behind it is the same, if they were bluffing they could bet pot b/c only a king or better than 1 pair can realistaically call imo so just fold

this

I call.

It's more interesting when the flop is 2 3 4 5 x, and you have an A but don't know if he has the 6.

He pretty much always has the 6, amirite?

If you have the 6, he has the 6 7.

Don't know why that is though....

Ok, so you might lose out a bit in the long run if you call, but just think how funny it is and how goddam smug you could feel each time you make a call like this and the guy's got AA, or 66.

folding is not necessarily right if you can see his cards. You have to see a king. I mean what if he shows you AA and you fold. Then youre an idiot.

Just call, it could be a misclick.

i see slowplayed AA/QQ/JJ alot there

bleh i call for the fpp's and the 0.001% chance that he might be bluffing. if the rake was capped at 5$ then I might fold.

Spite call. Ship FPPs.

On the other hand... if we are villain with a K, this is the best possible play because Hero is making a -EV play by calling (although it turns out -EV for us as well if he does call). But if we're playing against someone that always takes the most +EV route which would be folding for 0EV in this case, then shoving is obviously the best option because he has to fold everything.

The same argument would be true if it was AKQJT and we're first to act or villain checks to us. Technically shoving is the only option if there's less than 8BB in the pot because villain has to fold everything or take a loss.

he is not getting that 1 dollar pot. i suffer the loss to inflict pain on him as well. thats how i roll.

villain = me.

but I agree with every other sicko on here and spite call because I'm not letting you freeroll me.

Have to call.

But I make sure to light up the chat box

That's what I meant, Mr Smartypants

I call damnit, I won't let him pull this trick on me... I'd rather loose some money then let him get away with such a trick hehe.

do you value losing ~2bb in EV (assuming villain doesnt have nuts like 2% of the time which would be a fair, if not overestimate) more than you value winning 91bb??

don't mean to wave my **** around but i think the thread should end here.

seems like almost everybody agrees calling is -EV but still wants to call... interesting.

btw in the example where the board is the nuts and somebody pushes there can be made no argument about folding beeing the best option if money is what you are playing for and not something else

If it were -EV I wouldn't call ldo.

And yes, when the board is the nuts you have to fold if the rake is too high. In that case (with the same stack situation) folding leaves you with 99, and calling leaves you with 95. So it's a clear fold.

At 50NL at pokerstars, isn't the rake capped at 6bb, not 10?

That changes your numbers slightly. I'd call, just to catch that 1 or 2% of the time where the villain is bluffing or misclicked.

First of all, this is clearly 50NL, not 25NL. Second, the rake's capped at $3 for 50NL on Stars, so your maximum loss from calling is only $1 net (or 2 BB's). See:

http://www.pokerstars.com/poker/room/rake/

That means you need to be over 97.9% sure that he has a king to fold. If there's at least a 2.1% chance he thinks he's Doyle Brunson (and rivered 2 pair with T2), or is trapping with a set, then you gotta call.