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

punter11235 · #1 10-22-2006, 06:14 PM

"... 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 ?

tom10167 · #2 10-22-2006, 06:23 PM

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.

CaseS87 · #3 10-22-2006, 06:24 PM

value and fold equity

punter11235 · #4 10-22-2006, 06:47 PM

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.

benfranklin · #5 10-22-2006, 08:54 PM

[ 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.

thefoosball · #6 10-22-2006, 09:16 PM

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

benfranklin · #7 10-22-2006, 09:46 PM

[ 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]

CaseS87 · #8 10-22-2006, 10:33 PM

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

[/ QUOTE ]

lol, this forum is gold.

punter11235 · #9 10-23-2006, 05:06 AM

[ 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.

Zele · #10 10-22-2006, 06:48 PM

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).