Mid Stakes Shorthanded NL Poker Forums

#1 when I bet the river... I dont expect to fold out better hands.

#2 not a spot where people see many bluffs.. => you fold out stronger hands than you think.

#3 Betting turn is terrible.

#1 when I bet the river... I dont expect to fold out better hands.

Don't you think his floats usually bet turn?

Why? I guess it seems reasonable from a GTO perspective, since you get to this river with so much air that if you're bluffing at least part of it with a decent frequency then any type of bluffcatcher should be a snap call by him getting 2.5:1 -- is that your reasoning?

The thing is that I think his range is so weak that he would probably expect us to make it 52 like hero did with a rivered Kx and overbet air (if we ever overbet, of course), which is the level 1 thing that alot of regs seem to do, in my experience.

Then again, who knows what this guy is thinking, because a good chunk of the regs will instamuck anything if you make it 90.

Not all villains perceive all bet sizes the same way, some villains are more inclined to call an overbet than they are to fold to an overbet because they think you're trying to give them the worst possible odds to bluff catch or think that you're trying to protect your bet/folding range by jamming etc. Likewise an underbet can possibly induce more folds than an overbet here because we're giving the villain "impossibly good odds" to call for 25$ etc.

It's definitely a spot for non standard bet sizing IMO.

@Above

I don't hate betting the flop and check calling the turn, but it depends a lot on what reads we have and how well we know villain's tendencies for floating. I'd prefer not to do it vs unknown and usually take that line with the bottom of my value range tho', or board lock with like QQ.

Don't you think his floats usually bet turn?

I expect him to bet hands that don't have SD value yes.
I don't expect him to be so bad that he will bet hands like 77.

This hand is interesting, and I agree with a turn bet being bad but I can't put it into words exactly why.

I'm guessing it's because the range we are up against can successfully deny us our full equity share here with this hand.

So what if no better hands fold? You lose to 83o when you X/F the river for example. Making better hands fold means nothing by itself just like value betting means nothing unless you're IP on the river. I promise you or anyone else will get better at poker once they can get away from "value and bluffs" and think in terms of EV instead.

That is not correct in my opinion. If Villain NEVER folds a better hand if we bet but always calls (or raise) then we´re 100% better off x/c than betting. Our EV can´t ever be higher if we bet (and fold out air) than if we check and call his bets - regardless how often / rarely he bluffs - unless he calls with worse, but are we ever expecting that?! You mentioned yourself that we "should turn our hand into a bluff" - which means no worse hands are calling.

The equation to prove this is pretty simple, although it looks complicated at the first glance (x = % Villain has a value hand that beats 99, b = % Villain bluffs):

EV (bet) = x*-bet + (1-x)*pot
EV (x/c) = x*-bet + (1-x)*[b*(pot+bet) + (1-b)*pot)

The difference between EV(bet) and EV(x/c):

d(EV) = (x*-bet + (1-x)*pot) - (x*-bet + (1-x)*[b*(pot+bet) + (1-b)*pot))
d(EV) = (1-x)*pot - (1-x)*[b*(pot+bet) + (1-b)*pot))
d(EV) = (1-x)*pot - (1-x)*[(b*pot)+(b*bet) + (1-b)*pot))
d(EV) = (1-x)*(pot - (b*pot)+(b*bet) + (1-b)*pot)
d(EV) = (1-x)*(pot - b*pot -b*bet - (1-b)*pot)
d(EV) = (1-x)*(pot - b*pot -b*bet -pot +b*pot)

d(EV) = (1-x)*(-b*bet)

So, for any x and b (between 0 and 1) the difference is always negative, meaning EV(x/c) is bigger than EV(bet) and we lose EV by betting instead of x/c. You won´t find any figures for his value:air-ratio and/or his bluff:check-ratio that will yield a profit for betting.

So, did you mean sth. different? Same question to Oliver (Improva) who as well does not expect to fold out any better hand. Are you ever expecting worse hands to call?

All that said, I´m by far not a big fan of putting common terms like "bluffing" / "valuebetting" in question, although it seems to be quite "modern" or innovative nowadays to throw everything out of the window. The terms are pretty clearly (and correctly) defined in my eyes - the only thing might be that the situation is not as clear ... but that does not disqualify the words themselves.

I'm looking at this in CREV and I'm having trouble coming up with a situation where betting is greater than XF. If he's checking back the turn with mostly showdown hands then we expect him to check back the river a lot as well, right? If that's not the case then he's turning small pairs into bluffs then XC>Bet. If he's not turning those hands into bluffs that often XF>Bet.

I'm having trouble seeing betting being higher EV in a vacuum.

My assumptions off or anything I'm missing?

I'm having trouble seeing betting being higher EV in a vacuum.

You read my post? Or tl;dr?

You read my post? Or tl;dr?

Support, yo.

Just to add one point: if we were actually considering turning our hand into a bluff, we should use hands with less showdown value.

When the turn goes X/X we almost always have the best hand. Not betting the river is pretty bad IMHO. Bluffing and value betting are not well defined terms. But that is a different debate.

When the turn goes X/X we almost always have the best hand. Not betting the river is pretty bad IMHO.

So you expect to get called by worse?

So you expect to get called by worse?

I would also bet a hand without SD value.

Edit: Don't make assumptions unless you have a very good reason. Villain has a hand with SD value that he may or may not turn into a bluff. We have a looooot of air in our range given how the hand played. In this spot you want to be able to bluff as much as possible. If villain folds great.. bluff more in the future.. if villain calls with worse.. great.. he has now seen that you have a wide range of hands with SD value putting the BTM of his range under max pressure. If he calls with a better hand.. we will be more happy to XC turns vs him in equivalent situations in the future.

You mentioned yourself that we "should turn our hand into a bluff" - which means no worse hands are calling.

All that said, I´m by far not a big fan of putting common terms like "bluffing" / "valuebetting" in question, although it seems to be quite "modern" or innovative nowadays to throw everything out of the window. The terms are pretty clearly (and correctly) defined in my eyes - the only thing might be that the situation is not as clear ... but that does not disqualify the words themselves.

What I mean by turning hand into bluff means we have less than 50% equity, but not 0 equity vs a calling range. Seems like bluff and value are not very well defined terms.