... so you may be actually 95% sure or 85% sure but estimate
it at 90% ... It is very hard to [estimate odds at that level of
perfection]. What I am saying is that the pot is so large that folding is
a mistake if there is any uncertainty at all.
You make an excellent point and you're right that the fold just can't
be right because no read can be perfect enough to make the fold correct.
I guess that takes my back to my original theory, which is this: reraising
given that the SB with nut-straight is all-in, seems like a play with
negative EV, and even more so since you're forced to call for that
marginal chance you're winning. I've think that, mathematically, even if
my read is much less accurate than I thought, I might as well just call
and not raise. I've got to sit down and chug through the math to be sure.
But, I think we're in total agreement that, should I chose to raise, I
shouldn't ever have considered folding to a reraise. Even if the raise
turns out to generate a negative EV situation, folding is surely even
lower EV. (It's somewhat like the situation on the river in O/8, when
you're sure you're being quartered and thus having a negative EV outcome
for the hand, but you have to call to recover that quarter of the
pot.)
Thus, even considering a fold if reraised is the real mistake I made.
So, I'm sure glad he didn't reraise me, because I might have indeed given
away the fur coat in exchange for the shrimp cocktail. (Although the
parable you linked to was a bit raunchy for my tastes, I think it's point
is accurate). BTW, this sort of issue is why I'm beginning to enjoy NL as
much as limit play. In NL, you often are forced to consider whether or
not you should give up on your first fur coat because you might make a bad
choice and lose your second fur coat as well. The shrimp cocktails, OTOH,
are your limps preflop with marginal hands to take all of someone else's
fur coat money. They are very different games, but both very
interesting.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
That 1 BB and the fur coat
Date: 2004-12-18 00:19 (UTC)You make an excellent point and you're right that the fold just can't be right because no read can be perfect enough to make the fold correct. I guess that takes my back to my original theory, which is this: reraising given that the SB with nut-straight is all-in, seems like a play with negative EV, and even more so since you're forced to call for that marginal chance you're winning. I've think that, mathematically, even if my read is much less accurate than I thought, I might as well just call and not raise. I've got to sit down and chug through the math to be sure.
But, I think we're in total agreement that, should I chose to raise, I shouldn't ever have considered folding to a reraise. Even if the raise turns out to generate a negative EV situation, folding is surely even lower EV. (It's somewhat like the situation on the river in O/8, when you're sure you're being quartered and thus having a negative EV outcome for the hand, but you have to call to recover that quarter of the pot.)
Thus, even considering a fold if reraised is the real mistake I made. So, I'm sure glad he didn't reraise me, because I might have indeed given away the fur coat in exchange for the shrimp cocktail. (Although the parable you linked to was a bit raunchy for my tastes, I think it's point is accurate). BTW, this sort of issue is why I'm beginning to enjoy NL as much as limit play. In NL, you often are forced to consider whether or not you should give up on your first fur coat because you might make a bad choice and lose your second fur coat as well. The shrimp cocktails, OTOH, are your limps preflop with marginal hands to take all of someone else's fur coat money. They are very different games, but both very interesting.