Lukie Theorem

If you are facing a bet or raise on the river and you only beat a bluff, you never have correct pot odds to call. Fold or raise instead.

show us the hand Lukie

I thought Lukie theorem was something about how anything that makes it big on 2p2 will eventually make it's way here.

show the fucking hand

Hm not true, villain betting $1 into $1000 pot on river and we have bottom pair, we have pot odds to call.

what about the post oak bluff?

What if villain shoves or puts us all-in?

i dont care what you say, im a big fan of the bluff call

Originally Posted by Lukie

If you are facing a bet or raise on the river and you only beat a bluff, you never have correct pot odds to call. Fold or raise instead.

No - this is incorrect. (If you do actually beat a bluff - ie. you have A high)

You estimate what % of his range is a bluff in this spot, if the pot odds
are offering you better than that you should call...
(ie. you estimate he is bluffing 33% of the time, he bets 10 into 20,
so you have to call 10 to win 30 (3-1) 2/3 you lose 10 (66%) 1/3
you win 30 with A high (the 33% he is bluffing) - a very + ev call)

If you fold in this spot as suggested you lose valuable ev.
If you raise he folds 33% of the time he had a bluff (you gain 0ev here as opposed to calling.) but he calls you up to 66% of the time when he has a real hand. (so you lose major ev putting money in the pot with a worse hand.)

The theorem could read -
If you dont even beat a bluff you should raise/fold.

(ie. never call you will always lose, but if you estimate his range is heavily enough weighted towards a bluff or a perhaps a marginal hand he is betting thinly (that he will fold to a raise) then you can re-bluff/raise
if you have enough fold equity to warrant it.)

I dont think its right. what about on a very drawy board when we have Axs and the board all the draws miss on something like 6h7hx y z.

Its quite possible he is bluffing here, but its also quite possible we get looked up light since all the obvious draws missed. Calling gets value from bluffs. Raising probably gets looked up by any made hand.

You might be onto something on a very dry board, but then a bluff is a tiny part of his range on a dry board anyway.

Nobody folds a full house, ever.
a 3-bet on a dry board is always a bluff.

etc.

theorems are not meant to be taken 100% literally, there just has to be a lot of truth to them

Also, I hereby renounce the "Fold or raise instead." at the end.

Lukie theorem now reads:

If you are facing a bet or raise on the river and you only beat a bluff, you never have correct pot odds to call.

so basically what you are telling is is that villain is never bluffing more than like 25% of the time? I don't get it.

No, just raise/fold is always the better option.

i still don't like it. I dont think you can sum up this many different situations with a one liner.

http://www.flopturnriver.com/phpBB2/...ag-t65242.html

Originally Posted by Pelion

http://www.flopturnriver.com/phpBB2/forum/brag-t65242.html

river call is -EV, without a doubt

Originally Posted by Pelion

i still don't like it. I dont think you can sum up this many different situations with a one liner.

I think people are taking it far too literally. I do think it's true the large majority of the time, though.