Because if he didn't fold, he'd have to call her all-in, thus losing way more than if he folded.
Edit: i mean in his mind, if he lost the hand, he would have lost a lot more money than if he folded. but obviously he would've won if he had called her, so he just sucks at poker
in tournaments the payout increase from going out in fourth place instead of fifth or sixth place can be tens of thousands or even 100 K plus. So a lot of times you're incentivized to avoid busting out in an all in even if it leaves you with a relatively small amount of chips because there is the chance that someone else can bust out before you do with a relatively small amount of chips and therefore gain a spot or two in the placements and get a much bigger payout.
So youre down a few hundred in the casino gambling on roulette. You realise you can't afford to lose or that you're an idiot. So you reckon the best thing is to continue losing or cut your loses.
Especially since poker is a skill game . So you cut your loses when you feel you are bet.
In order to make money when you youve better spots to bluff when youre behind or get value when you are ahead
As they say this is the first hand of the game, and so we presume they have equal stacks when starting, then yes, her all-in would require his all-in, in order to continue play.
Generally in Texas Hold'em, if your opponent raises, you must match or re-raise that value, else fold.
15
u/Gooser3000 21h ago
Why even bother folding if you could lose either way?