\"Its better to be bettor than a caller because..\"
 

"... you can win in 3 ways instead of just one which a call offers".
This argument is quoted in almost every poker book but its ridiculous. Maybe its good to be a bettor and maybe its bad to be a caller but its for sure not for the above quoted reason.
Opinions ?

Re: \"Its better to be bettor than a caller because..\"
 

You have no fold equity when calling, and you also can't get a free card. You also get money in when ahead.

The best reason I can think of to check when you think you have the best hand is because your hand isn't very vulnerable, your opponent won't call if you bet BUT he WILL bet if you keep checking to him.

Re: \"Its better to be bettor than a caller because..\"
 

value and fold equity

Re: \"Its better to be bettor than a caller because..\"
 

What I am attacking is that particular argument ("you have 3 ways to win).
I think its pure nonsense. I wonder how otherwise great authors and smart people could use a sentence : "you have 3 ways to win" as an argument for : "its better to be a bettor than a caller". I am not questioning that its in fact better to be a bettor (well at least not in this thread). I only questioning the logic behind that particular argument.

Re: \"Its better to be bettor than a caller because..\"
 

I don't see what's wrong with the conventional explanation. It doesn't apply to every situation, but we're talking about a cliche, so I don't think it has to.

All things being equal, (having the best hand)+(FE)+(improving to win) > (having the best hand)+(improving to win).

Re: \"Its better to be bettor than a caller because..\"
 

[ QUOTE ]
What I am attacking is that particular argument ("you have 3 ways to win).
I think its pure nonsense.

[/ QUOTE ]

You haven't given any reasons to show that it is wrong. Are you denying that fold equity exists, and that it is good to have fold equity? Are you denying that the bettor has fold equity and that the caller has none? You say it is nonsense, but you don't say why.

Re: \"Its better to be bettor than a caller because..\"
 

its true though when you bet alot you win more than when you just call right?

Re: \"Its better to be bettor than a caller because..\"
 

[ QUOTE ]
its true though when you bet alot you win more than when you just call right?

[/ QUOTE ]

It depends. [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]

Re: \"Its better to be bettor than a caller because..\"
 

[ QUOTE ]
its true though when you bet alot you win more than when you just call right?

[/ QUOTE ]

lol, this forum is gold.

Re: \"Its better to be bettor than a caller because..\"
 

[ QUOTE ]
lol, this forum is gold.

[/ QUOTE ]

i agree. i need to check in here more.

Re: \"Its better to be bettor than a caller because..\"
 

[ QUOTE ]
You haven't given any reasons to show that it is wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok, here is the reason. Something is "good" in poker only if its profitable. "You have 3 ways to win" dont refer to "profitable" in any way. Its like saying : "An ant walks faster than human because it takes more steps per minute" or "Its better to take insurance in blackjack because you have more ways to win that particular hand" etc.

[ QUOTE ]
Are you denying that fold equity exists

[/ QUOTE ]

I am not. But if you bet you pay something for your FE. Sometimes its worth it and sometimes not.

[ QUOTE ]
Are you denying that the bettor has fold equity and that the caller has none?

[/ QUOTE ]

Again, bettor pays for his FE. Its not "good to have FE" its only good if the price is good. Its the same like sayign : "its good to live in a large house and drive the newest ferrari" but it doesnt mean you should go ahead and buy it even fi you somehow can scratch teh money for it.

[ QUOTE ]
You say it is nonsense, but you don't say why.

[/ QUOTE ]
I hoped people will see it by themselves.
The only way to say if its better to be a bettor or a caller is to analyse every particular situations. "You have 3 ways to win" is not argument for either betting nor calling because paying for those 3 ways may be more expensive that they are actually worth.

Some other general statements make more sense like : "its usually better to be a bettor than a in heads-up NL with a draw OOP" or "its usually better to be caller than a bettor on the river with a medium strength hand" etc.


[ QUOTE ]
(having the best hand)+(FE)+(improving to win) > (having the best hand)+(improving to win).


[/ QUOTE ]

This is not true. If you have the best hand your FE is usually worth a lot less than you pay for it (which mean its worth less than possibility that you pay off to better hand and losing possibility to induce bluffs) at least its true in "big bet" poker. Betting with a strong hand is not better because of FE.
To put it simply : it depends on particular situation and you need to do your thinking/analysing the sentence "you have 3 ways to win" its worse than useless because if you believe in it you are biased toward betting in your thinking.

Re: \"Its better to be bettor than a caller because..\"
 

Let's put $100 in a pot, and both pick a number out of a hat from 1-10. The higher number gets the pot, with some conditions.

You pick 6. Great for you, it's above average! Would you bet your number is higher than mine? Don't do anything yet, just hold that thought.

Now I pick my number. I offer a sidebet of $10 that my number is higher than yours, if you don't take it, you lose claim to the $100. You'll probably call, because you don't want to be bluffed out of the $100, but how are you feeling about your 6 now?

Re: \"Its better to be bettor than a caller because..\"
 

[ QUOTE ]
Let's put $100 in a pot, and both pick a number out of a hat from 1-10. The higher number gets the pot, with some conditions.

You pick 6. Great for you, it's above average! Would you bet your number is higher than mine? Don't do anything yet, just hold that thought.

Now I pick my number. I offer a sidebet of $10 that my number is higher than yours, if you don't take it, you lose claim to the $100. You'll probably call, because you don't want to be bluffed out of the $100, but how are you feeling about your 6 now?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'd call your $10 and raise you another $5.

Re: \"Its better to be bettor than a caller because..\"
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Let's put $100 in a pot, and both pick a number out of a hat from 1-10. The higher number gets the pot, with some conditions.

You pick 6. Great for you, it's above average! Would you bet your number is higher than mine? Don't do anything yet, just hold that thought.

Now I pick my number. I offer a sidebet of $10 that my number is higher than yours, if you don't take it, you lose claim to the $100. You'll probably call, because you don't want to be bluffed out of the $100, but how are you feeling about your 6 now?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'd call your $10 and raise you another $5.

[/ QUOTE ]

The hell you will. That's a clear-cut string bet.

Re: \"Its better to be bettor than a caller because..\"
 

I would say the pick a number thing is an example of when calling is better than betting, particularly in the 'aggression first/bet first' poker world that we live in.

It translates pretty easily into a real poker hand. There are 4 diamonds on the board at the river, you have the Ten of diamonds and are headsup and first to act. If its me, I would much rather check and call a bet with the 10, than put the bet out there myself.

The reasoning being that if I bet and get called, I will probably lose. If I bet and get raised, I will probably fold. If I bet and they fold, then I probably had the best hand.

If it is the opponent betting the same amount into me however, I can call and the range of hands that I beat that they may be holding is much larger. If I bet, I only get action from maybe 7d-Ad. If they bet, it could literally be anything. And if the opponent is aggressive enough, its likely more profitable.
----
And I think thats where calling is making a comeback, particularly among better than average, but not great hands. If there is one message being pounded into everyone's head, its "Bet Bet, and Bet some more." But the more someone bets, the worse the average holdings the person betting is betting with. At some point, you have to think that they are betting with hands that they wouldn't call the same bets with based on the "3-ways to win" strategy. So the result from the callers standpoint can often be "1-way to win", but that one way is resulting more often, and carrying greater value than the other 3 ways combined.

I definitely think there is some newfound value in being a calling station.

Re: \"Its better to be bettor than a caller because..\"
 

Seems pretty clear that in general it's better to be a bettor is a correct generalisation, like all generalisations it's enough that it's generally correct to hold true as a generalisation. If you are saying that there are occasions where it's not a correct statement then fair enough but it's still a good generalisation as most of the time, if you are going to play at all, it would indeed be better to bet than to call because of the added fold equity.

Re: \"Its better to be bettor than a caller because..\"
 

Gap concept.

Re: \"Its better to be bettor than a caller because..\"
 

I agree the generalisation is correct. But the more correct it is percieved to be, the less correct it becomes.

And I think the reasoning behind this is the same as why you are supposed to bet. Because of the fold equity the bettor adds to his hand, the caller is getting more value than if he just bet, because then his opponent wouldn't be factoring in the fold equity.

Re: \"Its better to be bettor than a caller because..\"
 

Nojitsu, the "Its better to be bettor than a caller"-rule does not apply to the river that much. There are are different rules that dictate profitable plays.
It's pre-flop,on the flop and turn when this rule applies the most.

Re: \"Its better to be bettor than a caller because..\"
 

[ QUOTE ]

The reasoning being that if I bet and get called, I will probably lose. If I bet and get raised, I will probably fold. If I bet and they fold, then I probably had the best hand.


[/ QUOTE ]

Forget about raising for a moment, because that is ignored in the OP. Raising is turning the tables and becoming the bettor.

As for betting and being called, that is why the pot has to be bigger than the bet. Your opponent should have incentive to call without the nuts. To repeat: Your 6 is more likely to be higher if your opponent is merely calling to have a chance at a large pot, rather than having him go out of his way to bet it, on the prayer that he is bluffing.

Of course in real life, some of your opponents are bluffaholics, but that's not relevant in a theoretical discussion such as the OP.

Re: \"Its better to be bettor than a caller because..\"
 

[ QUOTE ]
Let's put $100 in a pot, and both pick a number out of a hat from 1-10. The higher number gets the pot, with some conditions.

You pick 6. Great for you, it's above average! Would you bet your number is higher than mine? Don't do anything yet, just hold that thought.

Now I pick my number. I offer a sidebet of $10 that my number is higher than yours, if you don't take it, you lose claim to the $100. You'll probably call, because you don't want to be bluffed out of the $100, but how are you feeling about your 6 now?

[/ QUOTE ]

:-) I was hoping for such an argument.
If for example we play limit , the pot is 100$ and the bet is 50$ betting your 6 is major mistake. If the bet is small, like 10$ its correct to bet, if the bet is 100$ betting is pathetically bad. Its all depends...

[ QUOTE ]
but that's not relevant in a theoretical discussion such as the OP.

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you realize that in that game (number poker) for every bet size there is a number where its correct to check-call rather than bet ?
Do you realize that in pot-limit (when you have to bet the pot) version of that game you are correct to bet about 10% of your good hands ? (with raising and check-raising allowed ). Do you know how small the bet must be to make betting a 6 theoretically correct ?
Even in games when Villain may only call the bet need to be small to make betting a 6 correct ( I cant remember exact size now but its not the point)

Re: \"Its better to be bettor than a caller because..\"
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

The reasoning being that if I bet and get called, I will probably lose. If I bet and get raised, I will probably fold. If I bet and they fold, then I probably had the best hand.


[/ QUOTE ]
As for betting and being called, that is why the pot has to be bigger than the bet. Your opponent should have incentive to call without the nuts.

[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly. But the opponent is going to value their hand less from the calling position than the betting position. Because of the absence of fold equity in their decision making, they may rightly (from their perspective) fold to a 10 dollar bet when with the same hand they may rightly (again from their perspective) bet 15 dollars.

My argument again, is because of the pervasiveness of the Bet first mindset among players, the number of situations, particularly when holding moderately strong hands, where you would rather be calling vs. betting is understated.

On an unrelated note, I'm not really sure what pervasiveness means or if it is really even a word.

Re: \"Its better to be bettor than a caller because..\"
 

.....Because giving is less gay than taking.

[/thread]

Re: \"Its better to be bettor than a caller because..\"
 

[ QUOTE ]
"... you can win in 3 ways instead of just one which a call offers".
This argument is quoted in almost every poker book but its ridiculous. Maybe its good to be a bettor and maybe its bad to be a caller but its for sure not for the above quoted reason.
Opinions ?

[/ QUOTE ]
corollary:

"its better to be raiser than the bettor because.."

i believe in this case u has 4ways to win