[Matt Flynn]

[ QUOTE ]
Also note that in my example we make money on any amount bet. Even if it is small enough that it allows our opponent to make money as well. But we should still make it a mistake for our opponent to call. That maximizes our expectation while decreasing our opponents to the point where his falls below 0.

[/ QUOTE ]


hi pokerboy,

i'm exhausted, flight was way delayed coming home last night from LA, and this question deserves a well-rested response.

who is "right" depends on the underlying assumptions and gets seriously complex. the discussion topic is fantastic. if you've done this on the forums please link.

in pokerboy's example we have the best hand and opponent has a flush draw. there is a bunch of dead money in the pot. we benefit from every dollar that goes into the pot b/c opponent is roughly 4:1 to hit. however, opponent also has equity in the dead money. in this situation, if we assume opponent will not bluff if checked to (on the turn or river), then any bet > 0 benefits us. however, we want to price opponent out of the pot. if we bet exactly the price-in point, opponent is indifferent between calling and folding and so cannot make a mistake. if we bet less than the price-in point, we yield equity to opponent when he calls. if we bet more than the price-in point, opponent can make a mistake.

as an aside, in these situations, we DEFINE the equity of folding as zero. that's the correct frame of reference for decision-making. however, the equity of folding is not zero from a play-of-hand perspective. once you fold, the money you put into the pot is really gone as opposed to in play. for example, the decision-making starting point may be "i have 10% equity in this $100 pot, which is $10. if i spontaneously stick my hand into the muck, i lose $10." the cost of folding is $10, not zero. however, to decide whether you should make a play (like call a $50 bet), you "tare" to zero before weighing the option.

ok back to the example. we had a nuance we had to stick in, which is considering the value of future bluff-catching. say opponent loves to push on the river when he misses if he is not priced out on the turn. then it can be better to offer him a good price to draw because we make up for it by picking up equity when he misses the river and we call his bluff. once that nuance is defined out, the answer becomes clear.

in a similar way, there are major nuances in the AA vs. 66 hand. for example, opponent may have a wider calling range for a small limp-reraise than just pocket pairs, and we get a lot more equity when a non-pair hand calls. if we ignore these nuances or define them out, then pokerboy is right. opponent can have enough equity in the dead money and implied odds that calling is correct, and we lose because he calls. in other words, we would do better if we bet more, regardless of whether he folds or calls the bigger bet.

if we include the nuances, then pokerboy's perspective is often not the optimal one. however, the devil is in the nuance assumptions. these are tough to quantify and malleable depending on your mood and debating position. tomorrow i will argue that typical nuance issues make "my" perspective better.

matt