Originally Posted by JKDS

Wouldn't we need less than 50 win% depending on our bet size?

Originally Posted by JKDS

Also the threat of being check raised plays a huge role in deciding if we can value bet imo

Originally Posted by spoonitnow

No.

Originally Posted by JKDS

Nvm, i still make the same mistake i used to. You're right

Edit again: To clarify for others, i made the mistake of finding the EV of a bet...but didnt compare it to the EV of a check. By doing so, you see that betting is only better if we win more than half the time.

Originally Posted by Imthenewfish

ldo, when we bet for value we aren't winning any moar of the pot thats already out there than when we check (unless we fold better, but thats not value betting); so we're taking like 1:1, even though villain is taking better odds b/c of the money that was already out there

Originally Posted by kfaess

ummm.. can't we get away with less than 50% in some cases?

Eg. If we know that we have 40% equity vs villains calling range but we also know he is going to c/f 90% of the time on the river then the extra dead money in the pot compensates for the fact that we may not be ahead of his range, no?

I mean, clearly in this example it would be a huge mistake to not bet the river just because we're not ahead of his calling range. We're picking up what's already in the pot so often we can sacrifice some equity and still make a +EV bet.


This could also be called a "thin" value bet imo. We know that there are some worse hands that are going to call us, we know there are some better hands that are going to call us, and we think that better hands are going to call more often, but betting still works.

Originally Posted by spoonitnow

No.

Originally Posted by philly and the phanatics

ok what about in this example,

Board is Kh 2c 2d 9s 7d

Ok lets say some how we know Villains range when we get to river is AK, KQs, KK, 99, 22, dont ask how we know that we just do.



Fact- when we check to villain, he is going to shove everything except KQ which he will check behind.

Fact- If we shove he is going to call 100% of his range

Fact- Pot odds are such that when we check and he shoves, we are getting the pot odds to call with our 27% equity

We hold AsKs.

Against range with KQs we have 38.5% equity
against range without it we have 27% equity
Can we not value shove to get value from the KQ that we will otherwise miss. even though we have less than 50% equity against either range?

Originally Posted by spoonitnow

Added to the digest. Thanks caddie.

Originally Posted by spoonitnow

I'm going to try to use an example to explain this with an example in the most straight-forward way I know possible.

Suppose you're on the river, heads-up, in position in a $10 pot with $10 remaining in the effective stacks. Your opponent checks to you with 15 combinations, 5 of which beat you. Suppose he folds x number of combinations if you bet, and that he never folds a hand that beats you.

The EV of checking is (5/15)(0) + (10/15)(10) = $6.67.

The EV of betting is (5/15)(-10) + (x/15)(10) + ((10-x)/15)(20). Let's quickly simplify the betting equation:

(5/15)(-10) + (x/15)(10) + ((10-x)/15)(20)
-3.33 + (2/3)x + 13.33 - (4/3)x
10 - (2/3)x

So when is the EV of checking greater than the EV of betting?

6.67 > 10 - (2/3)x
-3.33 > -(2/3)x
5 < x

Checking is better than betting whenever he folds more than 5 combinations. If he folds more than 5 combinations, that means he's calling with less than 10 combinations. Since 5 combinations beat us, if he's calling with less than 10 combinations, then our equity against his calling range is less than 50%.

Therefore, checking is better than betting when we have less than 50% equity against our opponent's calling range.