calling vs. folding
 

Most players here are afraid of being weak-tight. It's common sense..nobody likes to be pushed around and nobody likes to lose pots of chips that would look so pretty added onto their stacks.

When I first started playing online from what I can remember I was weak/tight...but I was winning. It was mostly 1/2 6 max on party. Now this was a few years ago so I'm trying to remember. I read TOP but didn't really study it. I mainly just browsed the internet learning starting hands and that tight play wins. I had a very tight/agg pf game. I folded hands like 65s and Axs probably too much, even when I was playing on the button and CO. I raised pf with decent hands like QJs and was reraised I usually folded. If I bet the flop and was raised I usually folded anything less than 2 pair. I also usually always checked anything less than top pair unless I had the nut flush draw. I hardly chased, and hardly bet/called the river unless I was almost absolutely sure I had the best hand, regardless of the size of the pot. My win @ showdown percentage was always over 70%. The swings were small and so were the wins....but most of the time they WERE wins.

Now I'm a more educated player. Read the books, got the experience, and my stats are close to where they "should" be. The thing is the swings are bigger. I feel like my calls and raises are not as solid as they used to be, and I'm barely a winner online (live play is good to me thou...all NL).

Now after reviewing my play I've tried tightening up, sort of mixing what I've read with my old folding habits. I've come to have better results because of this, although it is over a small sample size.

My point is this. For me anyway, after reading the books and posts I noticed I was calling/betting more in marginal situations...telling myself I HAVE to call or bet because it is what the right play is. I don't think I was applying concepts the wrong way, bc my play matched up with responses and posts from other 2+2ers. Now it's been said that it's better to make a marginal call and lose a bet instead of making a wrong fold and losing the pot, but how true is this statement for you're long term game? Mathamatically you should call if you THINK you have a 30% chance of winning and you are getting like 4 to 1, but what would happen if you just folded in these spots and only called when you had clearer calls? I know this sounds stupid because in theory you're results reflect the numbers, but in practice which do you think will get you better results? I guess it all comes down to how good your judgement is and how you well you can determine you're chances of having the best hand, but everyone is off sometimes. I know in cash games you should always take play that has even the SLIGHTEST positive EV, but because we are not perfect why is it wrong to fold more often in these spots and save your $$ until you have a better play?

Re: calling vs. folding
 

Great question....I look forward to the responses.

Re: calling vs. folding
 

this post was great until the last half of the last paragraph.

Re: calling vs. folding
 

I like this post, it is a great example showing why new players lose trying to play correctly - no reflection on you as your post is different. Calling when a hand shows a positive expectation is mathematically correct but not always financially correct unless you have a big game bankroll, play small limits, and have no common sense.

If and it is a big if, a player can afford to play every draw that has a positive expectation and can play long enough eventually all those situations pay off. But not many have that time or bankroll and there are usually better investments.

For example, say I am playing some limit HE with a kill. It is a kill and I am late position and it comes to me capped.

After they allow me to pull out my spreadsheet, I see that I will make $.10 each 14 situations of this type. So it is a positive expectation but a bad investment for obvious reasons. You have to decide what margin you can take.

The upside of marginal situations is this is where the money is. We don't make much holding AA and flopping A,A,x. Don't let short term results cloud your thinking.

Re: calling vs. folding
 

[ QUOTE ]
are not perfect why is it wrong to fold more often in these spots and save your $$ until you have a better play?


[/ QUOTE ]

because you are losing money. Unless you desperately need the money and don't want to take gambles like this. In which case you shouldn't be playing. What you are saying is that it should be O.k to pass up +EV bets if they have a reasonable amount of variance. Wrong. Poker is all about making +EV bets. You should have the BR to support the variance. That's what a good poker player (any gambler) does. Make +EV bets with a big enough BR to support the variance.

Re: calling vs. folding
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
are not perfect why is it wrong to fold more often in these spots and save your $$ until you have a better play?


[/ QUOTE ]

because you are losing money. Unless you desperately need the money and don't want to take gambles like this. In which case you shouldn't be playing. What you are saying is that it should be O.k to pass up +EV bets if they have a reasonable amount of variance. Wrong. Poker is all about making +EV bets. You should have the BR to support the variance. That's what a good poker player (any gambler) does. Make +EV bets with a big enough BR to support the variance.

[/ QUOTE ]

What I'm saying is that in certain spots you may think you're play most likely has a slight +EV, but you could be wrong. I think it's better just to pass up these marginal situations altogether.

For example let's say I'm trying to move up in limits. Say I'm playing 5/10 with a "bankroll to support the variance" of 5k. I put the phrase in quotes bc it is impossible to determine how long it will take for the odds to balance themselves out. Now let's say I'm trying to work my way up to regularly play in the 10/20 game so I want to pretty much double my bankroll ASAP.

Now there is a slight chance I will build it up quicker my putting my $$ in on marginal calls/bets, but if my judgement is off some of the time there is a better chance that it will slow my rolls growth. I also give luck more control over the speed of its growth. That's gambling though right? Now what if I were to pass on these maringal situations and stick with the clear +EV bets? Wouldn't my roll's growth be steadier? Wouldn't I have more control over the speed of it's growth than my luck? To build my roll I'm going to be looking to protect as much money as possible while at the same time winning as much as I confidently can. Isn't this what we should be doing regardless if we're looking to move up or not?

I know I'm not really getting the point I'm trying to make across and I can see why theoretically I'm wrong, but there's something about this that seems right. My results show it, even though they're not long term, but I also notice I'm more of a consistent winner when I'm playing scared. This doesn't mean that when I'm not scared I'm just a loose player, but by holding back on certain bets and calls that most on these forums would make, I am seeing better results. (im gonna get flamed righ here)

Re: calling vs. folding
 

[ QUOTE ]
What I'm saying is that in certain spots you may think you're play most likely has a slight +EV, but you could be wrong. I think it's better just to pass up these marginal situations altogether.

[/ QUOTE ]

This isn't unreasonable thinking for tournament play, to some degree, but not for side games.

Passing up very slight +EV, high variance situations aren't always terrible errors. But they are errors, and if you're making them repeatedly you're losing money.

[ QUOTE ]
I can see why theoretically I'm wrong, but there's something about this that seems right. My results show it, even though they're not long term, but I also notice I'm more of a consistent winner when I'm playing scared.

[/ QUOTE ]

If these close +EV situations are such high variance, why not add a little to your bankroll so you can afford to take advantage of them? Sounds like you've identfied a small leak but don't want to fix it.

Re: calling vs. folding
 

If you're judgment isn't great then yeah, it would make sense to avoid marginal spots. Even give up spots you MIGHT perceive to be -EV. But if it's definitely EV, you should do it.

Re: calling vs. folding
 

[ QUOTE ]
I also give luck more control over the speed of its growth.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't understand that sentence.

[ QUOTE ]
For example let's say I'm trying to move up in limits. Say I'm playing 5/10 with a "bankroll to support the variance" of 5k. I put the phrase in quotes bc it is impossible to determine how long it will take for the odds to balance themselves out.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well obviously, you could lose every hand untill you go bust. You just need a big enough BR to make that very unlikely. How unlikely? Well that's up to you. But that's a different topic.


What you are finding is that you are making some money, but you are deffinitely losing some by passing up these situations. I know what you are saying. You want a steady BR growth so you are passing up slightly +EV high variance situations. That will make your BR fluctuate less, but you are still losing money, and your BR will not increase as much. That's the bottom line.

Re: calling vs. folding
 

Interesting. I went through the exact same thing. I started playing and winning, but I was fairly tight and not very aggressive. I started reading bookk and forums and watching videos, etc., and I started playing differently. I was looser and more aggressive, but I started losing. I think it's because I thought, "The books say I should call or raise here, so I will," instead of playing the game I was in. I'm playing situations and players now instead of relying on what I'm "supposed" to do, and it's working.

I think live play is easier because you have more information on your opponents--it takes longer to become good at online play.

Re: calling vs. folding
 

If you played against people who bet in a very straightforward way (not a lot of bluffing), your 'weak' play may have been preferable to an optimal strategy. Calling rather than folding is often predicated on the idea that there is some % chance that your opponent is just trying to push you off the hand and therefore you have odds to call; if your opponents are not this tricky then the fold makes more sense. Maybe this is what you're seeing. Similarly, if you are playing against people who will rarely fold, it decreases the value of betting marginal hands. Anyway, as I posted before, a weak-tight strategy plays well against blockheaded calling stations, so if that's what you're mostly up against then by all means play it.
You should also consider the possibility that the game you're playing in has gotten tougher in subtle ways. The overall level of poker play has gradually been improving over the past few years, even if a lot of low limit players are still very bad.

Re: calling vs. folding
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
are not perfect why is it wrong to fold more often in these spots and save your $$ until you have a better play?


[/ QUOTE ]

because you are losing money. Unless you desperately need the money and don't want to take gambles like this. In which case you shouldn't be playing. What you are saying is that it should be O.k to pass up +EV bets if they have a reasonable amount of variance. Wrong. Poker is all about making +EV bets. You should have the BR to support the variance. That's what a good poker player (any gambler) does. Make +EV bets with a big enough BR to support the variance.

[/ QUOTE ]

What I'm saying is that in certain spots you may think you're play most likely has a slight +EV, but you could be wrong. I think it's better just to pass up these marginal situations altogether.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think this is the key to your question. And this is where the better players will make their money. They make the correct decisions more often. If you are calling bets in these situations and find your self losing more than you should you are probably overestimating your chances of winning. It's time to re-evalute, because what you think is +EV is actually -EV.

Instances where I think it might be correct to pass up a slight +EV is if you think you can find a much larger EV and saving / having those chips will be of greater benefit

Re: calling vs. folding
 

Okay, are you asking what happens if you play tighter? It seems that is your question? You will win but you will win less over time, although your losses may be smaller dependant on how much selection you have of players to play against.

Against poor or new players (calling stations in training)you will do okay, against average or better players your win rate will plummet and the blinds will be a serious drain on your buyin.

The reason this is because if you do not give me action, do not expect any in return. Or simply put, you are moving into rock territory where only the nieve and foolish pay you off.

For the marginal situations, right now you have the time, why not figure out what hands are what away from the table? It is more effective than trying to learn by osmosis.