outdoing tommy, andy fox, and maybe even TxRedMan!

[THE OUTLAW]

I've been a lurker on this site for about six years now. For about the past two years the only threads that I am entertained by or feel I can put any weight into for the most part are the ones started by Tommy or mike l.

This is truly a great post. Whether the fold was right or wrong the readers of this forum got to take a look at the very, very deep thought process of mike l. Generating some thought is what posting hands should be about. I wish there were more posts like this instead of the stupid posts that contain online hand histories.

The Outlaw

[SA125]

Say it's a limit game, you know AA and KK are in for a 4 bet cap pf. That's 2 BB's. You have the choice of putting in 2 BB's with hidden JJ and get 2-1 to go to the flop. Should you go?

One way to look at it is that you're 7.5-1 to flop a set and way behind. The other is to say that the pf equity is 67% AA, 17% KK and 15% JJ. You're basically against AA and a 4.5-1 dog.

So if you're hand was hidden and could extract more than 2.5 BB's post flop from the gamble if you hit, you should do it.

I'm surprised a player of mike's caliber is justifying the fold by saying he's worried about making mistakes with it. Knowing that he knows what he's up against, very surpised.

[andyfox]

I said Mike made an awesome post. I would still not have folded the hand.

When you do get to our crappy city, I look forward to sitting across the table from you. Hopefully just the dinner table.

[danzasmack]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

variance can minimize expectation because not all players have ice running through their blood, and are in fact prone to being "results oriented"

sometimes avoiding a slightly +ev spot w/ high variance is actually more + ev than accepting that spot.


[/ QUOTE ]

this is a really good point. i never really thought of it that way. i think you may have just inspired me to tighten up.

[/ QUOTE ]

This comes up with every student I coach. The important thing though is that it is a two sided thing. This fold is really situational and if you wanted to make it YOU SHOULD. You should make decisions based on how they will change your play for the rest of the session. If you think that you can fold here and play solid poker for 4 more hours, but calling and losing would make you get up, go home and watch TV, which should you do? In this case, it sounds like you wanted to play a solid game with minimal variance, which is FINE.

But at the same time you have to consider the benefits of having a loose image at the table. And then at the same time the benefits of having a tight image. This can go back and forth all day. Essentially, you have to play to the mood you are in to some degree. I don't mean that you can just up and change your play style when you are feeling crazy.

Many times in my poker career I have made terrible calls. Just awful. Now, the frequency of these events obviously has decreased over time but once in a blue moon I will still make a call knowing I am beat because I really just want to see it, and because I know i will have to get up and take a break if I don't and I'd rather stay in the awesome game. We are human. Obviously the goals is to completely remove this from your system, detach yourself. This has to do with the frequency thing. While this maybe used to happen once a session, now it's once every 10 sessions. 1 bet every 10 session to help me play better for 10 sessions is certainly +EV.

So if I'm reading what I think I'm reading - the question really is "can I ever give up +EV?" Yes, you can. Because in fact, sometimes the -EV is offset by something else. But really, you don't want to.

[DpR]

Alot of info in this thread already. I am one of the few on this board that does think that variance is an issue when making poker decisions - even beyond the strict bankroll consideration (which should be obvious, yet somehow get consistently ignored/dismissed on this board).

HOWEVER, I think this hand specifically does not fit into the category that is should be folded due to variance, and I do think it is a big EV mistake (relatively). If Mike's read is so good, as he himself likes to profess his live reads are, then play the hand like it is 22 postflop. This is not a high variance scenario. In fact, given the read, it is a rather good situation since there is an opportunity to collect a high return with very little variance.

That is what I find odd about the situation as described. IT is a particularly low variance situation. Now, if the read was worse (i.e. he could also easily have AK or 1010) then the varaiance of the situation is greatly increased, becaue Mike's post flop actions will be less clear and he will more often put in money when behind. However, the EV of the situation also is greatly increased, thus a fold would also be a big mistake in that case.

So, it is great to finally see some acknoledgement that variance should be a concern, since ever agrees with me all the times I have mentioned it. But I think it is greatly misapplied in this hand (and in fact applied exactly opposite how it should be IMO).

I will however conceed that if Mike's read is in fact dead on, and he knows this, yet will still call down when his JJ is an overpair, then he probably made the right decision for his own game. It just doesnt translate well to a message board because it would defy logic. I do think many if not all of us have situation where we just can't amke the right play even when we know what it is.

[ALL1N]

You should have said in your initial post that you're not rolled for 1-2 or whatever.

[stinkypete]

[ QUOTE ]
You should have said in your initial post that you're not rolled for 1-2 or whatever.

[/ QUOTE ]

ZING

[mike l.]

i am. but ive answered elsewhere why id like to lower my variance.

[shemp]

[ QUOTE ]
i am. but ive answered elsewhere why id like to lower my variance.

[/ QUOTE ]

There's an awful lot of good thought in here but it is justifying a bad example. If you know the other guys cards you should be more likely to play when you have odds to play, however thin.

I suggest that preflop decisions, while extremely influenced by steaming, don't go that far towards helping you not steam. You aren't faced with a high variance proprosition, whatever that means, you are faced with a profitable one.

[shemp]

In a 3-handed pot, when player A talks to player B, the actual target of the comment is player C. This suggests a more difficult scenario than the one you present, where you are certain you are swimming upstream against one or more overpairs.