Errror in Caro's Lectures?

[rvg72]

Reading some of his lecures from about 7 years ago. In the 23rd lecture titled "Folding Your Hands for Extra Profit" he makes what I think is a false statement:

Against a Bet, whenever Calling is unprofitable and raising is unprofitable then folding IS profitable.

This is wrong, isn't it?

Through bet sizing you can make someone lose "money" by calling, raising or folding.

An obvious example is someone on a draw - you can make a bet that makes drawing unprofitable due to pot odds and at the same time a fold loses them money since their pot equity is more than the bet amount.

Am I overlooking something? He does not specifically mention Limit or No Limit (or even Hold'em) when discussing this and other points, it is more general theory.

rvg

[Niediam]

[ QUOTE ]
Reading some of his lecures from about 7 years ago. In the 23rd lecture titled "Folding Your Hands for Extra Profit" he makes what I think is a false statement:

Against a Bet, whenever Calling is unprofitable and raising is unprofitable then folding IS profitable.

This is wrong, isn't it?

Through bet sizing you can make someone lose "money" by calling, raising or folding.

An obvious example is someone on a draw - you can make a bet that makes drawing unprofitable due to pot odds and at the same time a fold loses them money since their pot equity is more than the bet amount.

Am I overlooking something? He does not specifically mention Limit or No Limit (or even Hold'em) when discussing this and other points, it is more general theory.

rvg

[/ QUOTE ]

No limit hold'em wasnt played seven years ago.

[Al Mirpuri]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Reading some of his lecures from about 7 years ago. In the 23rd lecture titled "Folding Your Hands for Extra Profit" he makes what I think is a false statement:

Against a Bet, whenever Calling is unprofitable and raising is unprofitable then folding IS profitable.

This is wrong, isn't it?

Through bet sizing you can make someone lose "money" by calling, raising or folding.

An obvious example is someone on a draw - you can make a bet that makes drawing unprofitable due to pot odds and at the same time a fold loses them money since their pot equity is more than the bet amount.

Am I overlooking something? He does not specifically mention Limit or No Limit (or even Hold'em) when discussing this and other points, it is more general theory.

rvg

[/ QUOTE ]

No limit hold'em wasnt played seven years ago.

[/ QUOTE ]

Your statement is incorrect. No limit hold'em was played seven years ago. Maybe not by you and certainly not in the numbers now enjoying it and maybe not even in Vegas. Mason wrote that no limit hold'em would die out (ipso facto: it existed) in GT&OT.

If what you meant was that Caro did not have no limit hold'em in mind then who knows?

[Al Mirpuri]

[ QUOTE ]
Reading some of his lecures from about 7 years ago. In the 23rd lecture titled "Folding Your Hands for Extra Profit" he makes what I think is a false statement:

Against a Bet, whenever Calling is unprofitable and raising is unprofitable then folding IS profitable.

This is wrong, isn't it?

Through bet sizing you can make someone lose "money" by calling, raising or folding.

An obvious example is someone on a draw - you can make a bet that makes drawing unprofitable due to pot odds and at the same time a fold loses them money since their pot equity is more than the bet amount.

Am I overlooking something? He does not specifically mention Limit or No Limit (or even Hold'em) when discussing this and other points, it is more general theory.

rvg

[/ QUOTE ]

The part of your text I highlighted appears to be a contradiction in terms. Unless pot odds and pot equity are separate things and I think in the draw example they are not.

Caro seems to have stated a tautological truth (true by definition such as two plus two equals four).

If you see a flaw in my argument then please point it out.

[Al Mirpuri]

Against a Bet, whenever Calling is unprofitable and raising is unprofitable then folding IS profitable.

Bet sizing cannot make hand x lose money by raisng, calling or folding simultaneously, so if you price out a draw it wins by folding, if you underbet the pot it wins by calling, if your bet is so small that it thinks it can buy the pot it wins by raising. Yes bet sizing can win money by making it unprofitable to call, fold or raise but it cannot do all three simultaneously and whatever the profitable action is against the bet size the other two options are unprofitable.

[TimTimSalabim]

Folding always has zero expectation. Therefore if calling and raising both have negative expectation, folding is the most profitable play.

[londomollari]

[ QUOTE ]
Folding always has zero expectation. Therefore if calling and raising both have negative expectation, folding is the most profitable play.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, if a call has positive expectation it follows a fold has negative expectation.

[jogsxyz]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Folding always has zero expectation. Therefore if calling and raising both have negative expectation, folding is the most profitable play.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, if a call has positive expectation it follows a fold has negative expectation.

[/ QUOTE ]

Fold still has a zero expectation. But zero is inferior to positive. Fold may be wrong, but it's still zero.

[Krow]

I think you are reading too much into this, it is a common sense statement.

The example is there is a bet in front of you you have 3 descision call, raise or fold. Calling is "unprofitable" meaning you will lose money in the long run, and Raising is "unprofitable". That is the scenario, you have to figure out that it is "unprofitable" and as you state about a draw, a draw is "unprofitable" when the pot-odds don't work if the pot out or even implied odds won't be profitable, if they worked out it would be profitable! It doesn't matter limit or no limit. And while you won't win money in the long run by folding, you save your money. By being unprofitable you lose money in the long run. There is no reason to overthink that, because it is just a point. So no there is no error in that statement.