well, to quickly deal with it--
the smaller we make it, the more our opponent will get out of raise-fold and into call-fold. so, when our opponent is in raise-fold mode we want to make it as small as possible, and when our opponent is in call-fold mode we want to make it as big as possible!
Usually.
Andrew
Baluga,
First off, thank you in advance for your responses. Also, your videos have improved my game more than any other single learning tool, so I am very appreciative for those as well.
This seems like an exremely important concept and understanding it can lead one to choosing correct bet sizes in a multitude of situations. I have a few questions about it:
So is this idea tied in with the concept of leverage? and how does our reason for betting tie in with this? i.e. if our opponent is likely to play raise or fold, but we want thin value, we bet small enough to give him odds to just call, whereas a bigger bet would force a shove or fold situation (i.e. leverage point) and better hands will raise and worse hands will fold (or raise and force us to fold the best hand), resulting in us getting no value (like in the 888 flop spot in the video)? But if we bet small enough, we don't force his medium strength hands (which we want value from) to raise or fold, and we thus get value from those hands.
If villain is likely to be in raise or fold mode and we are bluffing, do we want to make it as small as possible without making it so small that we offer correct odds for a call (like we did when we were going for thin value) and risk the minimum to threaten his whole stack? what if he is in call or fold and we are value betting unthinly? do we make it as big as we think we can without making a fold more likely than a call? what if he is in raise or fold and we are value betting unthinly? do we make it a similar size to when we are bluffing as to induce a shove?
If villain is likely to be in call or fold mode and we are bluffing with later streets to come, do we want to make it bigger so that we get some more folds on the current street, but even if we don't, by calling our big bet villain is more creating passive dead money that we can profit from on later streets?
You said something like if we have equity and villain is likely to play raise for fold, we want to make our bet smaller to induce him to play call or fold instead. When you say, "when we have equity," do you mean when we have equity with enough showdown value to go for thin value? because if we have equity like an oesd on the turn, but only have 8 high like 78 on K629rb, then it doesnt seem like we want to be betting small to induce call or fold mode, unless bet size is not a factor in his decision to call or fold. then the extra money doesnt buy us anything and a smaller bet is good. but if our bet size is a factor in villain's decision and a bigger bet will get more folds, then isnt betting bigger better, even if it puts villain in raise or fold mode? ie a smaller bet might induce a lot of calls but not get many folds, but a bigger bet might induce a raise but will get more folds and this is good. or is inducing call or fold mode with a smaller bet better in order to "set our own price to draw" (even if it makes a call more likely than a fold)?
Are these concepts related to elastic and inelastic calling ranges?
How do we know what mode villain is most likely to be in? player type and his range is my guess?
How can we adjust our bet sizes for the various scenarios above without giving away information about our hand and becoming exploitable? (and similarily, how can we adjust to/exploit an opponent using similar strategies?)
you bet and i shove. not a happy world for you i imagine
Reply to Topic
Reply w/Quote
