vanquish said:
i think the whole $28 rather than $31.90 can be a psychological thing where we expect villain to call $28 but be too scared of a $31.90 awrin. same reason you sometimes bet/call $100 as a bluff when the guy has $120 behind. you COULD just shove, because it's pretty much the same thing, but psychologically $100 has more FE, so you pick $100.
yeah this, basically. like i said, i would have just shoved probably too, but enty bet the % he bet because he thought it'd get called more, maybe that's wrong, maybe that's right
dsvw56 said:
A) Calm down. Everyone understands the concept, you're just blowing things out of proportion.
B) Yes, there is a difference between an all-in or near all-in bet and betting with more money left behind because player's mindsets change. How many players on the river with slightly more than a pot sized bet left are thinking "Ok, I'm calling if he bets 3/4 pot but folding if he shoves"? Almost all of the time their decision is binary, either they are calling or they aren't regardless of the size of the bet.
using 6 exclamation points in a row does not mean im being super serious, it means i'm bein' flippant, i'm plenty calm
and yo, i already explained why that logic is flawed. again, say there's $100 or whatever more behind. does anybody say "okay, i'm calling $32 but folding to $33?" i don't know, but at some point they make that distinction.
basically take any hand where you bet less than all-in with a huge hand on the river, and i'll act incredulous that you didn't bet $2 more because clearly he would have called the same % of the time for $2 more. that is pretty much the same thing you guys are doing to enty. actually if anything, the fact that $3 more is an all-in makes that $3 MORE psychologically powerful than if they have more behind. some recreational players play a cash game til they bust their stack. with $3 left they can still attempt to run it up so that might encourage them to call slightly more if they still have that left
jamesdadeliverer said:
We all realize there's a cutoff, but betting 90% of your stack is not going to be correct in virtually all circumstances (unless you have them covered and it doesn't matter).
i'm waiting for the why, though. just because you say it's so?
it might have been slightly not the best bet, just like it might have been slightly not the best bet if they'd had $100 more behind. but acting incredulous about it is just silly. he wasn't intentionally trying to short himself $3, he clearly thought that there was a psychological difference. if he knew the guy calls 100%, he goes all-in obviously
the same reason you might bet $28 instead of $32 regardless of how much money is behind? because apparently he thought there was a slightly higher enough % chance of getting $28 called, enough to make it more profitable
