This question came up last Saturday and for some reason the other four people at the table (some of my best friends) all disagreed with me. One of them even said "I don't know why you won't let this go, you're smarter than whats coming out the other end", when I tried to defend my position.

My contention is that there is one play in EVERY situation that has the highest +EV at that time. There might be several plays that are good but one is the best. Is that not true?

The hand that made me bring it up at the table was something like this:

I had AKos UTG (5 player table), I raise it from $.25 up to $1.50 (probably too much but I needed to hit the head so I wanted to take this pot and run off when I was BB next hand). I get called by the button and the SB. The board is something like J55 and its checked to me. I bet but fold to a large raise from the button cause she doesn't bluff. She turns over K5s. I asked why she called a 6x the big blind raise with that mediocre hand. She says "you gotta mix up your play". I say, true but I think that play has a -EV. My best friend then comes to her defense and says that its a good play and has +EV because if she flops the flush she can take all my chips so it makes up for all the times she misses and folds when I bet. I totally disagree. If the flop comes ragged like 369 of hearts, I may try to bluff at it but if I feel real pressure from her I'll probably put her on a set and fold (she doesn't bluff). I'm very surprised at him defending the "mix it up and try to get lucky so you can win a big pot" theory as applied in that case.

Do you think calling a 6xBB raise with K5s is + or - EV? We are usually a pretty tight table. Its not like she can count on someone making a huge bluff when she flops her trips or flush.

We then got on to more theoretical discussion and I said that each situation has an optimal play, the trick is finding it. They all say that can't be true because you see two people with completely different styles being successful (Hansen vs Harringiton). I say its a totally different game for each of them and the situation is different cause of table image even if the cards and opponants are the same. This went back and forth for 10 minutes before we decided to agree to disagree. Am I totally missing the point or is he wrong?

Well, I hate to seem wishy-washy but I see both points. Yes, I think there IS a play for each situation that gives you the higest EV. But I also can see the point about mixing up your play - while I think that J5 call was VERY loose, I do think it's smart to make plays you wouldn't normally make. True, it may be EV- (or maybe not as + as another) FOR THAT GIVEN HAND, but it may well make it harder for oppenents to read you and giving you a more + EV in the long run.

You yourself pointed out that you folded because she never bluffs - what if she made that same raise after missing the flop? True, that would ALSO probably be an EV- play for that one hand, but if you either called her down or she showed you her bluff that might make you more likely to call a bet from her when she DOES have the goods.

First of all, how do you know that Hansen is successful? How much money has he made?

Barry Greenstein certainly feels that he loses a lot of money in the high-stakes side games, I have no idea how many tournaments he enters, but he is not in the top20 players ranked by card player.

Secondly, someone can be successful and still not be playing optimally - leaving money on the table. Ed Miller has a pretty long post on that topic on 2+2.

Calling 6x the BB with K5s? How big was the stack that both of you had?

I think she will only flop a flush DRAW about 12% on the time. It definitely is not worth it to flop a flush, whish will only happen less than 1% of the time.

There are too many ways to lose money with this hand heads-up. But hey, why argue with them? Just say - ah, good point.

welllllllll

she did have position, was suited, most of the time a 5 on the flop wins the pot, you wouldnt put her on that, and you think she never bluffs!

not that bad of a time to mix it up i guess. if she feels she can out play you i guess it would be right for her to call, but i dont know her skill. also i doubt she thought of these reasons and thats why she called.

anyway to your question, i guess there are plays that are highER EV than others dno about highEST. for the reasons i mentioned its probably ev+, but for her to make that play its probably ev-.

im not quite sure why you dont want her calling a 6xbb raise with k5s when you got AK though lol

I agree with Girevik about her bluffing. If she shows you, you are going to remember it everytime she makes a bet at you. However, there is probably one best +EV play for each situation. But does it matter when you are playing for EV and the other person is not? When she decided to mix it up and play that hand she kind of threw +EV out the window and she is trying to get lucky.

I don't know all I know is he's on TV

Remember, these are close friends of mine. We often have discussions like this. She was fairly short stacked at the time and I was up a bunch.

Shes not that good of a player. Everytime I've seen her show down a hand in the past year and a half she's had something. (The obvious exceptions being when there were not post flop bets or when she made a call on the flop or turn on a draw and missed but there was no bet on the river.). She SHOULD bluff and she knows it but she just doesn't. There is no way she thought she could outplay me.

And I don't mind her calling with K5 lol, I just wanted to know why she did it. Heck if every time she had K5 she called my 6xBB raise I would be one happy camper.

if she was short stacked it was a horrible -EV play.

You make plays like that for the implied odds, and you need a lot of chips for that.

beavis, gus hansen has won 2 wpt events and made the final table in many...so he has made alot of money. And they also say he's a very successful ring game player

__________________
I'm corydoubleu!

I understand mixing up your play, and the thing is you don't really know how she's been playing her other cards. It seems like in this situation, your friend doesn't seem to understand post-flop play. I see this happening a lot since the popularity boom of poker. It's popular because it's "easy" and it's easy to see your first two cards and understand how good they are. Your friend also seems to understand that you must "mix up" your play. But the fact that she will only showdown with a superior hand means she is not actually mixing anything up. If she were bluffing and keeping you on your toes, then there would be a possibility of you calling her down with an inferior hand or overplaying a high pocket pair or top pair or somesuch and thus playing a hand like K5 and hoping to hit may be considered positive EV (also providing that she has the firepower to gamble like that). However, you said that she does not change her play post flop, so she gets no implied odds whatsoever. -EV for sure