calling vs. folding

[bbartlog]

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.

[Small Fry]

[ 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

[Mike]

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.