What do you do here?

[Gap23Razor]

i think this is a fold by a slim to fair margin, but due to bluff defense consideration plus chance we could improve i would probably call down just to keep from being seen as weak (ego is my enemy)

here was my thought processing in coming to that decision...

on the turn there are 9 bb in the pot, and if you call down from here on, you can expect to be paying 2 bb to win 10 bb possibly, 5 for 1 right here...usually, i figure there is a 10% chance of that the villian is bluffing in a spot like this if i don't have any prior knowledge of him, so it seems the payoff is about half of what i would want to call here for bluffing defense only...we have another 4% chance of catching a 3rd Q on the next card...that helps a little bit with our chances....

so, it seems we are a little short on payoff to justify

[Allday Everyday]

[ QUOTE ]
i think this is a fold by a slim to fair margin, but due to bluff defense consideration plus chance we could improve i would probably call down just to keep from being seen as weak (ego is my enemy)

[/ QUOTE ]

When I wrote my reply to the OP, I said 'meta-game benefits' were a small benefit to calling down. I was talking mainly of 'bluff defense consideration'. However, since writing that, I think I've reconsidered. I'd still call down in this spot, however, I'd don't think 'bluff defense' is necessarily a benefit to calling down. The reasons for this are that bluffs are only profitable when used correctly, and that very few SS players have the skill to bluff correctly. So, the more times the average SS player bluffs at us beyond what they normally would, we gain.

Therefore, in extremely close mathematical decisions as to whether or not we should 'call-down', maybe we should fold for 'meta-game' considerations, to induce future bluffs?

Flaws in my thinking here?

I'm aware that these kind of considerations aren't very important in SS games as not many, if any, opponents are paying full attention to the play of others. I also understand that the few opponents who do notice would probably be the better bluffers. These theories are obviously not very practical. I'm not asking so much to further my SS game, I'm asking more to further my understanding of poker theory.

Actually, I can see that people here might consider this a dumb post. But I've already written it. It's getting posted.

[BenA]

[ QUOTE ]
Actually, I can see that people here might consider this a dumb post. But I've already written it. It's getting posted.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wow, this is the thought process I always have right before I hit 'post.'

Anyways, its not dumb, but I think that there are two good things to argue with in your post:

1) You present the point that that many SS players don't pay attention and that means we should consider our image less. Yes and no. For those paying attention, this is still quite valid. Even many of those who don't pay attention will 'take notice' of something like folding for one more bet in a big pot on the river. Whether they are trained or not in poker theory they will sense weakness and start trying to push you off pots, which brings me to my next argument...

2) Encouraging people to bluff against you is NOT, IMHO, the best way to alter your personal table image. Appearing to easily fold, be weak tight and give up your overcards easily means lots more check/raises against you on the flop, turn and river, and makes medium to small pots much harder to play. You allow people to essentially play YOU, and when you look down at your cards, you see something that's only worth picking off a bluff, the pot is small, and you might have to fold.

It is far greater to establish a loose image. If people feel you won't fold to their bluff, they'll think twice. You'll have fewer people take shots at you, and when a strong play is made, you can be much more confident in a fold. On the flip side, having an image of being agressive and super loose means that your value bets will be called far more often. Appearing weak tight means everyone folds when you bet, and everyone bets when they sense you have only a mediocre hand. Think about it. I might be a little off here, but I think the general idea is correct.

Just my 2 friggin cents.

[Gap23Razor]

nice write up

i found myself thinking about game-theroy when considering your post---just how many times it would be optimal to call v fold in a series of situations like this?...i must confess it is a topic upon which i will have to do more reading and analysis to come up with some guidelines for myself...its back to the books for me it seems...learn & grow

and, i agree, that in several small stakes games, such thinking is not necessary as opponents are not as clever as we fear. Still, small stakes is the training ground for mid-stakes and up, so i am glad you presented this problem for consideration...

thanks again!