[fraac]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What I never understood about game theory in Hold'em was that a correct calling frequency also means that you have to have a bluffcatcher a certain amount of times. In contrast to draw poker where most examples for game theory come from, it's tough to make a hand in Hold'em, even a bluffcatcher, and very often the opponent is bluffing with the best hand. Let's say your math tells you that you are required to call in x% of the cases, but your mix of hands has you fold most small pairs on the flop and take a lot of busted draws to the river, so in many cases you don't even have a hand to call with. Are you adressing such things in the book?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not really sure I'm understanding your question correctly, but I don't see how you think you would have gotten to the river with a distribution that has no calling hands. [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img] Maybe you can come up with a concrete example?

Tysen

[/ QUOTE ]

Let's say I get 4:1 odds for a call on the river. If I remember correctly then game theory says that I am supposed to call 75% of the time. I simply find it very hard to play a distribution that contains 75% hands with showdown value. Very often I am sitting on a busted draw like 6-5s or Q-To and even if fold all these and decide to call with any pair or even any ace to make up for it, I'll still be way below 75%.

I know that Chen/Ankenman write in Math of Poker that calling frequencies change a lot on multi-street games because of draws, but for the sake of the argument, let's just assume it was a dry board and a way ahead/way behind situation all the way.

[/ QUOTE ]

Isn't this a problem with tenses? By Chen and Ankenman you should have called 75%, rather than should call 75%.