Here's a free lesson

I am playing no limit holdem.
It is folded to me in the cut off, I raise to 4bb with Villain in the Big Blind who has pre flop stats of (vpip/pfr/af) 27/13/2 calls.

Flop is

I bet 6bb villain calls.

Simple question: am I betting for value or am I bluffing?

Discuss.

I'd say you were value betting. You had to think AJo was good so far with the big blind calling at a discount.

I'd say value betting. I don't class c-bet's as a bluff. You raised pre flop. He checked the flop. I would always be c-betting the flop here. Am I wrong?

If he is a 27/13/2 (most likely a tagg fish) then we can probably assume that his 2% 3betting range includes AKs, AKo, AA, KK, QQ and maybe JJ.

His calling range in the BB is likely to be pretty wide, maybe as wide as around 18% which would be: JJ-22,AQs-A5s,K9s+,Q9s+,J9s+,T8s+,98s,AQo-A9o,KTo+,QTo+,JTo.


Text results appended to pokerstove.txt

193,050 games 0.005 secs 38,610,000 games/sec

Board: 6d Td 2c
Dead:

equity win tie pots won pots tied
Hand 0: 42.015% 39.62% 02.39% 76496 4613.00 { AhJc }
Hand 1: 57.985% 55.60% 02.39% 107328 4613.00 { JJ-22, AQs-A5s, K9s+, Q9s+, J9s+, T8s+, 98s, AQo-A9o, KTo+, QTo+, JTo }

You are bluffing the flop. However, if the villain is weak-tight and will only continue with a set, top pair, or a strong draw, your cbet is folding out more than half of his hands which makes it a profitable play.

If you don't improve on the turn, you can c/f because you are likely going to be behind. And if you hit top pair on the turn and get raised, you can easily lay it down because villain most likely has hit two pair or is raising his set.

fyi the 2 is his aggression factor not his 3 bet %.

you're bluffing because you'd be happier if he folded obv

Given villains AF we can assume he's more on the straightforward side of things post flop. He probably does call way to much out of the bb and this flop is unlikely to have improved his hand. We're definitely bluffing here sicne he never calls with worse and if he does it's with some draw/float that may play back at us on a later street.

I'd say given his stats we can make an educated guess that he'll be giving up on the vast majority of flops he doesn't connect with so this C bet is very std and is defo not a value bet as we expect/want him to fold a ton and aren't ever happy when he calls.

Primarily bluffin looking to barrel. Interested in where ur going with this.ill let others at it first.

am i sitting on the fence / being ridiculous if i say we are kinda doing both??

vs villains flush draws / gutshot straight draws we are essentially value betting, as we hope to charge him a price he's willing to pay but shouldnt be to try and hit his draw - whilst having more SD value than him at this early point in the hand.

vs his made hands our cbet is a bluff, as we are behind and are hoping to take down the pot right there on the flop.

id guess in this situation, that the % of his range we are v-betting against is <<<<<< than the % of his range we are bluffing vs.

Nice post meeloche. This is a spot many people just overlook in studying and make a play nearly automatically. I fall into that group, so here I am to give it a look.

I'd agree with sil that our c-bet in this spot does a few different things.

1) There are some worse hands that can call us, mainly flush draws. While we are getting value from his flush draws currently by cbetting here, there are a few problems that could arise. (a) His flush draws have relatively good equity against our hand. (b) I doubt he will c/call his flush draws with a 100% frequency, and I would expect him to c/r some % of the time, which we won't be able to call.

2) Depending on the villain, there probably aren't a lot of better hands that our cbet will fold (at this time!). While it is certainly possible for him to just c/f 56, 67, 77-99 type hands, I wouldn't count on it occuring very frequently (obv villain dependent). If he is not c/folding those hands, then by cbetting we really only fold out AQ/AK hands that are better (however, AK and sometimes AQ will be 3bet preflop at times, and therefore won't always be in his range here).

I say there aren't a lot of better hands that will fold "at this time" in the above paragraph. The reason I say this is because while a c-bet will be called by better hands here, a decent amount of those hands will not be able to continue to additional aggression on further streets. If he is check/calling the flop c-bet with hands like 56, 67, 77-99, FDs, we are setting ourselves up for profitable barreling situations where we can bet turn, and possibly river and he will lay down a large % of his range (such as a sizable portion of the range above).

3)C-betting here kinda falls under the category of betting for protection. A c-bet here does achieve a few things, even though it might not be the typical sense of value (getting worse hands to call) or bluff (folding better hands). We are likely to have the best hand some % of the time (as we are opening CO, and depending on villain he is calling KQ, KJ, AT, etc type hands that we beat).

So a c-bet from us, while it might not get many better hands to fold, and might not get many worse hands to call, it does win the pot a decent % of the time. This is good, because we don't have 100% of equity in this spot; however, when villain folds he is conceding his equity in the pot. (Example: if villain has 30% equity with a pot of 10bb. On average, if we just check it down we will only win 7bb. However, if we c-bet and he folds we win the entire 10bb (he will obv only fold a % of the time though).

Another advantage of c-betting would be to minimize the times when villain "bluffs" us off the pot (that is he has <50% equity, yet we fold. Which will occur at times if we just check back the flop here).

4)A c-bet here balances our range. While we might have the best hand, and since we don't get many better hands to fold or many worse hands to call (bluff/value), checking back this flop might seem like a relatively viable option. However, we would likely never check back this flop with a nut type hand. Therefore, by checking back the flop we are really giving villain decent information about the strength of our hand, which is that we are relatively weak and can't stand ample amounts of aggression.

5) While it's generally a bad idea to bet solely for information, this bet will give us a decent amount of information about villains range. Since this is a relatively drawy flop, and we could easily have draws, nut made hands, etc., villain will likely be looking to c/r this flop with his strong made hands, draws, air the majority of the time. When he doesn't do this, while we can't totally write off the chances of him having a strong hand, we can reduce the frequency with which he shows up with a nut type hand. And therefore, this ties into the above paragraph of settin us up for +ev barreling situations.

That's all I have for now. I'll check back later and add some more maybe. But for now, I would just like to leave one thought.

If we are in this spot, I would be perfectly happy to c-bet a hand like J9, KJ, as we have little showdown value against villains range, and there are more better hands that would fold. However, with a hand like AJ, AQ, AK, we do have some amount of SD value. If we expect c/raises often on this board, it kinda makes sense to check back hands like AJ-AK as we are often going to be c/raised off of those hands. And depending on turn/river cards, and the frequency with which villain bluffs if we check back, we could setup some interesting hero calls.

So basically what I'm asking is, does the benefits of c-betting this type of hand [AJ-AK] (balance, villain conceding equity, setting up for barreling situations, etc) outweight to disadvantages of c-betting this hand (being c/raised off of what could be the best hand relatively often)? I think it does, and c-bet here the majority of the time (with the intent of barreling good turn/river cards if villain c/calls my c-bet). Thoughts?

Originally Posted by meeloche

fyi the 2 is his aggression factor not his 3 bet %.

Oops. FWIW, I still think that the villain would probably be 3betting those hands out of the BB rather than just flat calling.

I think in this instance, a delayed cbet might be better against a loose-passive.

Value bet definitions:
From Mike Caro University: bet for value

(v phrase) Bet a hand with the intention of getting called by one or more lesser hands, as opposed to getting the others to fold. Usually implies betting a hand that has only a slight edge, and one that a conservative player would likely check with. Also value bet.

From Wiki:
value bet
A bet made by a player who wants it to be called (as opposed to a bluff or protection bet). This is typically because he has a superior hand that he expects to win at showdown, or a very good draw for which he can increase his pot equity by more than the amount of his bet. See value.

You are definitely not value betting as getting called is not your intended result. Note that value bet and bluffing are not the conclusive set of betting options.

I agree with stax that it is also for protection. So it's not a "bluff" per se, but it's not a value bet either because, again, the best result is villain folding. If he has a flush draw with two undercards we're a flip with him and he's probably raising us some of the time so we're not happy to bet here vs. a flush draw since he's never going away, can possibly bluff us on the turn/river.

Also against people who have ridiculous flop c/r stats I'll just check it down since the flop doesn't seem to hit our range too hard, we can only have a ten or better, a flush draw or a hand that will fold to a raise.

Hmm good question. I'm going to say that it is neither a pure value bet nor a pure bluff, but rather a semi-bluff.

If we consider our equity on this flop against the top 27% of hands in poker stove, then we have 47.5% equity. How can we be value betting if we're not even ahead of his range? If we assume that he continues here with all hands that are ahead of us, then value betting has a negative expected value.

I also don't feel like this is a pure bluff because we have 2 over cards and part of the range that he continues with is flush draws and gut shots. So our equity against his continuing range isn't horrible as it would be in a pure bluff. If we consider just folding equity from the flop bet (as in the case of a pure bluff) then I think bluffing by itself also has a negative expectation.

But when we combine our equity in the hand with our folding equity, then I think the flop bet has a positive expectation. If I'm not mistaken, this is the definition of a semi-bluff.

If he is passive like you say he is, he probably does have a hand similar to yours or a drawing hand. His range probably includes 22+, Axso, or just top 15% hands or so, something where he's looking to hit a flop.

He'll probably call down one more card if you double barrel and if he's hit his hand he'll bet on the river which is an easy let go if you completely miss

I'd say here it's a VB only because you probably have him beat/you can get him to fold his low pair if you double barrel. He probably won't bet out his set until the end though so perhaps keep the bets at 1/2 pot so you can get out if he does just call down.

Correct my reasoning if it's flawed please, I'm still new to this.

Ok so this hand I am value betting.

Here's why: Versus this specific villain I don't expect him to raise any of his draws. This is the main reason I am value betting here. I am ahead of the large majority of his straight draws, random overcard floats, Ace high floats and flush draws which he will peel the flop with and likely c/f unimproved. He is also not aggressive enough for me to worry about him bluffing a large percent of the time on later streets with all his floats. Also if you look at his range out of the big blind His made hands on this board < all of his draws, overcards and wiffed combinations
On the flop when he checks the flop he has KJ in his range right? We are ahead of KJ so we bet cause he could conceivable call 1 street with it. Trust me I've seen this specific player type do it.

Why aren't I bluffing? If you look at only the flop what better hands are folding the flop? I can only guess 33-55 maybe which isn't 100% of the time either vs this player imo.

What happens if I'm behind? If I'm behind after he calls the flop he has a very vulnerable 1 pair hand. I have equity against this range and I still have the initiative in the hand and can represent ton's of turn and river scare cards. He is only going to take his hand to the river if I decide not to bet the turn or he hits a 2 outer. The only way he wins the pot is if he has a 10 and stations it or if I decide to c/f turn and river for whatever reason. So what I am doing is punishing him for seeing if his marginal hand/draw (which is the large majority of his range) is the best hand for 1 street.

Important Please note: This situation is player specific and board specific like all situations in poker. The goal of this post is for you to be thinking when you bet why you are doing it and it also gives you another way to win more when you see flops.

Feel free to comment/question this I will address individual posts latter on when I have more time.

You are value bluffing

He will float with worse a lot here and you still have good equity against his range.. look to barrel the turn and take it down a lot.

I don't know if your question was with those stats specific or not but if not.

I know its not a good thing to go by. But I have steal % and or 3 bet % and Fold to flop C-bet stats in my hud as well. This helps me narrow his range a little further. Obviously a high Fold to C-bet # would let me know if he is calling I am in trouble more of the time. As well as his 3 bet % being high or not could let me know that he is calling me down with a hand like 67, or 68. Dunno if you were looking to take the post in this direction or not. Sorry if it wasn't.

Originally Posted by inƒamous

I don't know if your question was with those stats specific or not but if not.

I know its not a good thing to go by. But I have steal % and or 3 bet % and Fold to flop C-bet stats in my hud as well. This helps me narrow his range a little further. Obviously a high Fold to C-bet # would let me know if he is calling I am in trouble more of the time. As well as his 3 bet % being high or not could let me know that he is calling me down with a hand like 67, or 68. Dunno if you were looking to take the post in this direction or not. Sorry if it wasn't.

This kind of thinking is what I was hoping to inspire. You should be thinking about the specific situation you are in and how your opponent plays and what you can do to exploit him and how his stats affect his range.

Originally Posted by XxStacksxX

Nice post meeloche. This is a spot many people just overlook in studying and make a play nearly automatically. I fall into that group, so here I am to give it a look.

I'd agree with sil that our c-bet in this spot does a few different things.

1) There are some worse hands that can call us, mainly flush draws. While we are getting value from his flush draws currently by cbetting here, there are a few problems that could arise. (a) His flush draws have relatively good equity against our hand. (b) I doubt he will c/call his flush draws with a 100% frequency, and I would expect him to c/r some % of the time, which we won't be able to call.

2) Depending on the villain, there probably aren't a lot of better hands that our cbet will fold (at this time!). While it is certainly possible for him to just c/f 56, 67, 77-99 type hands, I wouldn't count on it occuring very frequently (obv villain dependent). If he is not c/folding those hands, then by cbetting we really only fold out AQ/AK hands that are better (however, AK and sometimes AQ will be 3bet preflop at times, and therefore won't always be in his range here).

I say there aren't a lot of better hands that will fold "at this time" in the above paragraph. The reason I say this is because while a c-bet will be called by better hands here, a decent amount of those hands will not be able to continue to additional aggression on further streets. If he is check/calling the flop c-bet with hands like 56, 67, 77-99, FDs, we are setting ourselves up for profitable barreling situations where we can bet turn, and possibly river and he will lay down a large % of his range (such as a sizable portion of the range above).

3)C-betting here kinda falls under the category of betting for protection. A c-bet here does achieve a few things, even though it might not be the typical sense of value (getting worse hands to call) or bluff (folding better hands). We are likely to have the best hand some % of the time (as we are opening CO, and depending on villain he is calling KQ, KJ, AT, etc type hands that we beat).

So a c-bet from us, while it might not get many better hands to fold, and might not get many worse hands to call, it does win the pot a decent % of the time. This is good, because we don't have 100% of equity in this spot; however, when villain folds he is conceding his equity in the pot. (Example: if villain has 30% equity with a pot of 10bb. On average, if we just check it down we will only win 7bb. However, if we c-bet and he folds we win the entire 10bb (he will obv only fold a % of the time though).

Another advantage of c-betting would be to minimize the times when villain "bluffs" us off the pot (that is he has <50% equity, yet we fold. Which will occur at times if we just check back the flop here).

4)A c-bet here balances our range. While we might have the best hand, and since we don't get many better hands to fold or many worse hands to call (bluff/value), checking back this flop might seem like a relatively viable option. However, we would likely never check back this flop with a nut type hand. Therefore, by checking back the flop we are really giving villain decent information about the strength of our hand, which is that we are relatively weak and can't stand ample amounts of aggression.

5) While it's generally a bad idea to bet solely for information, this bet will give us a decent amount of information about villains range. Since this is a relatively drawy flop, and we could easily have draws, nut made hands, etc., villain will likely be looking to c/r this flop with his strong made hands, draws, air the majority of the time. When he doesn't do this, while we can't totally write off the chances of him having a strong hand, we can reduce the frequency with which he shows up with a nut type hand. And therefore, this ties into the above paragraph of settin us up for +ev barreling situations.

That's all I have for now. I'll check back later and add some more maybe. But for now, I would just like to leave one thought.

If we are in this spot, I would be perfectly happy to c-bet a hand like J9, KJ, as we have little showdown value against villains range, and there are more better hands that would fold. However, with a hand like AJ, AQ, AK, we do have some amount of SD value. If we expect c/raises often on this board, it kinda makes sense to check back hands like AJ-AK as we are often going to be c/raised off of those hands. And depending on turn/river cards, and the frequency with which villain bluffs if we check back, we could setup some interesting hero calls.

So basically what I'm asking is, does the benefits of c-betting this type of hand [AJ-AK] (balance, villain conceding equity, setting up for barreling situations, etc) outweight to disadvantages of c-betting this hand (being c/raised off of what could be the best hand relatively often)? I think it does, and c-bet here the majority of the time (with the intent of barreling good turn/river cards if villain c/calls my c-bet). Thoughts?

I should probably acknowledge this post since there was a bunch of effort put in and the majority are good points.

To address the latter part of your post:

You can still soul read call the river if you bet the flop. B/f the flop is so much better than checking behind and trying to pick off bluffs cause you're letting him play perfectly. You've given up the initiative and are handing him the pot cause your range is so weak that you become the player giving one street of value away. When you are ahead of the large majority of somebody's range you should bet. You are giving this player too much credit for having aggressive good postflop play in his arsenal which he likely does not have. Thinking that the villain will play his hand similarly to how you would play it is a leak that I had and still have from time to time.

Oh one last thing I'm not balancing when I bet this flop, I'm widening my range. When you have wide ranges you are a bitch to play against.

I like this thread, because I just lost a memorable pot in a live game where I was c-betting my AJ (which I had raised pre-flop) against a Villain who turned out to be a total calling station. (I was ahead, knew I was ahead, and got sucked out on the river when Villain, who called my c-bet, paired a queen.)

The thing I would say about c-betting is that it is so totally read-dependent and board dependent. To answer the question, you are both betting for value in case you have the best hand and bluffing in case you don't and can induce a fold. But you are also obtaining information about where you stand in the hand, though that isn't the main purpose of the bet.

However, I have to say that I think a lot of the poker literature oversells the value of c-betting. C-betting works very well in games with decent poker players, and it also works well against nits and shrinking violets who will fold to the least bit of aggression.

I must say, however, that at the games I normally frequent, I see way too much c-betting (perhaps these guys read poker books) and it doesn't work very well at all, both because there are so many calling stations at the table and also because so many players see the flop even in raised pots. When you c-bet into a bunch of calling stations in a multi-way pot, you are betting against people you who are predisposed to call you and the chances are greater that one of them has hit some sort of a hand that he can call you with. At best, the c-bet buys a check on the turn and lets you see the river for free.

So I like to think about how many players are out there, how they play, and what they might have before firing that c-bet out there. It may seem awfully passive, but I am perfectly willing to check/fold a pre-flop raised hand that missed the flop if I don't think a c-bet is going to get me to a position where I can win the hand.

Both kinda. You are value betting against flush and str8 draws. Also you are hoping to get 22-99 and AQ to fold. I ignore AK because i would assume that villan would reraise you pre-F with that hand

do you want a call?
if not - bluff
are you repping a hand better than high card med kicker?
if you are - bluff

I dont see how we can use HCMK as a value betting hand against anything except a complete fish, which even then is not profitable since you will get beaten by low/mid pairs so often, and widening your range here against a such a player is pointless.

Originally Posted by langaan

do you want a call?
if not - bluff
are you repping a hand better than high card med kicker?
if you are - bluff

I dont see how we can use HCMK as a value betting hand against anything except a complete fish, which even then is not profitable since you will get beaten by low/mid pairs so often, and widening your range here against a such a player is pointless.

You've completely missed the point here. I would recommend re reading my answer post in this thread. The point is even if we are behind to some small pairs we will be able to get them to fold at a latter street with ease. Also we are getting called by worse by this type of player.

I see what you are getting at, i just dont think those 3 stats on vill are enough to consider this a value bet.

without strong reads, id consider this more bluff/protection.

fish or nit, i want a fold on this cbet 100% of the time.

Originally Posted by langaan

I see what you are getting at, i just dont think those 3 stats on vill are enough to consider this a value bet.

without strong reads, id consider this more bluff/protection.

fish or nit, i want a fold on this cbet 100% of the time.

What if his fold to turn c-bet stat is like 90%

Originally Posted by Micro2Macro

Originally Posted by langaan

I see what you are getting at, i just dont think those 3 stats on vill are enough to consider this a value bet.

without strong reads, id consider this more bluff/protection.

fish or nit, i want a fold on this cbet 100% of the time.

What if his fold to turn c-bet stat is like 90%

then I want a call lol

Originally Posted by Micro2Macro

Originally Posted by langaan

I see what you are getting at, i just dont think those 3 stats on vill are enough to consider this a value bet.

without strong reads, id consider this more bluff/protection.

fish or nit, i want a fold on this cbet 100% of the time.

What if his fold to turn c-bet stat is like 90%

that turn bet stat changes everything. but we dont know that about this villain, all we know is he is 27/13/2.

We know villain called a raise in the BB, but we dont know how often he does it.
Does he do this with small pairs? does he 3bet ever from BB?

If Villain calls PFR's like 4% of the time, 3bets say 4-6%, then we can assume he is calling here with small-mid pairs and maybe sc's - AQ

you can get value out of the small pairs on the Flop IF he misses his set and IF he folds to your turn bet. But then again, does villain know you will double barrely overs?


My point is, in certain situations with certain reads, this particular flop bet would be considered a value bet, but certainly not against any 27/13/2.

aside from the fact that there are a ridiculous amount of scare cards that could hit the turn.

meelo,
im not trying to disagree with your post, im just saying we'd need a bit more info before we can call this a value bet imo.

bluff he has apiece of flop or he would not of called by stats given

Originally Posted by langaan

meelo,
im not trying to disagree with your post, im just saying we'd need a bit more info before we can call this a value bet imo.

Fair enough but a lot of the factors that you are looking for usually go hand in hand with this player type and can be assumed until proven otherwise since that wouldn't be the norm. Aggression factor is a pretty big indicator of how somebody plays postflop.

Originally Posted by meeloche

Originally Posted by langaan

meelo,
im not trying to disagree with your post, im just saying we'd need a bit more info before we can call this a value bet imo.

Fair enough but a lot of the factors that you are looking for usually go hand in hand with this player type and can be assumed until proven otherwise since that wouldn't be the norm. Aggression factor is a pretty big indicator of how somebody plays postflop.

it's a pretty shitty indicator
a fit or fold nit can have 5 or 6 aggression factor because he either raises or folds
but someone who's really laggy can have 1.8 because he floats a lot

Originally Posted by iopq

Originally Posted by meeloche

Originally Posted by langaan

meelo,
im not trying to disagree with your post, im just saying we'd need a bit more info before we can call this a value bet imo.

Fair enough but a lot of the factors that you are looking for usually go hand in hand with this player type and can be assumed until proven otherwise since that wouldn't be the norm. Aggression factor is a pretty big indicator of how somebody plays postflop.

it's a pretty shitty indicator
a fit or fold nit can have 5 or 6 aggression factor because he either raises or folds
but someone who's really laggy can have 1.8 because he floats a lot

you sir confused me.

Then I guess a 1.8 is going to be floating a fd in this spot?

Originally Posted by meeloche

Then I guess a 1.8 is going to be floating a fd in this spot?

not necessarily
it's one fucking number, it doesn't tell you how a person plays, ffs

he could be raising flush draws and calling with any hand that has showdown value, like any pair
against that strategy we'll be definitely bluffing

We'd have to have a plan for 2-barrelling this board then right?

Like if we suspect a float then bluff-raise him unimproved on the turn or river may be +EV?

Assume this; you have AA villains has 32o.

- Both of you know eachothers hand.
- Villain is always gonna fold once you bet.
- Will you bet or not?
- Is it a valuebet or a bluff?


Is a bluff;
- a bet to let one or more better hands fold ?
- a bet to buy villains equity in the pot ? (not necessarily better hands)

Is a valuebet;
- a bet that has one or more worse hands calling ?
- a bet when you're ahead of villains range (not necessarily ahead of his calling range) ?

I'd just like to note that I am incredibly tired, and that theory isn't yet my strong point (as if I had a strong point). So everything below is obv imo, and subject to being entirely incorrect/retarded.

Originally Posted by minSim

Assume this; you have AA villains has 32o.

- Both of you know eachothers hand.
- Villain is always gonna fold once you bet.
- Will you bet or not?
- Is it a valuebet or a bluff?

I mean if you know villains hand, and he knows your hand, both individuals are going to play perfectly against each other, making no mistakes. If we are taking an entire hand into account and allowing cards to come, then it is profitable to bet AA everytime preflop as villain should never call, and the reason your doing this is because 32 has equity against AA, so since villain will play perfectly against your hand he will never put in money when behind. Therefore, there is no sense in checking and allowing him to hit his 2pair+ to beat you and pick up his share of the equity.

Originally Posted by minSim

Is a bluff;
- a bet to let one or more better hands fold ?
- a bet to buy villains equity in the pot ? (not necessarily better hands)

The typical sense of a bluff is betting with the intention of better hands folding. Basically, you feel as if you do not have >50% equity against his range, however, you feel his range is comprised of enough hands that will fold to make your bet/raise +ev.

Originally Posted by minSim

Is a valuebet;
- a bet that has one or more worse hands calling ?
- a bet when you're ahead of villains range (not necessarily ahead of his calling range) ?

How is a bet for value if you are not ahead of his calling range? If checked to you on the river IP in a HU pot you wouldn't bet for "value" if you didn't feel you were ahead of his calling range.

I think I know what your saying though. For instance, you are ahead of villains range of hands on the flop, and therefore cbet, however you are always behind when called. Well in that case you weren't betting for value. If you are putting in money only to be called when you are behind, then it's not for value.

Originally Posted by Micro2Macro

We'd have to have a plan for 2-barrelling this board then right?

Like if we suspect a float then bluff-raise him unimproved on the turn or river may be +EV?

It's better to barrel the turn than c/r the turn suspecting a float because:
1. He can fold a weak pair that he wouldn't bet on the turn, but would call on the river since he'll be guaranteed a showdown
2. If he called the flop with a strong hand we'd like to find out without putting in most of our stack

But actually in some cases it might be worth it to c/r bluff the turn if you know the guy's been floating way too light because you get an extra bet if you're more often right than not

Originally Posted by XxStacksxX

I mean if you know villains hand, and he knows your hand, both individuals are going to play perfectly against each other, making no mistakes.

Yeah agree, the 'they know eachothers hand' should very NOT be in it.
It's key that they DO NOT know eachtohers hand lol.

Originally Posted by XxStacksxX

I think I know what your saying though. For instance, you are ahead of villains range of hands on the flop, and therefore cbet, however you are always behind when called. Well in that case you weren't betting for value. If you are putting in money only to be called when you are behind, then it's not for value.

Yeah it's not a valuebet, nor a bluff (according to definition you gave to it).

Basically, if you're using the definitions like better/worse hands calling/folding; than the AA vs 32 bet is neither of them. So there's a 3rd type of bet, the type many people call the 'protection' bet.
(agree that the protection bet does not exist on the river)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I read a post someday from a well known player (BobboFitos) in which he used the following 'definition' of bluff;

- 'The goal of a bluff is to make your opponent fold their equity share when they are in fact correct in calling.'

- Deriving the opposide for a valuebet; The goal of a valuebet is to make your opponent call when he does not have enough equity.

In the AAvs32o example you're trying to make you opponent to call incorrectly, therefor it's a valuebet.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

That makes me conclude that;
If you're >50% against his range (not calling range), you're valuebetting.
(because your goal is to let villain make the mistake)
If you're <50% against his range, you're bluffing.
(wether he calls or not)


In some situation where you're >50% against a range, but 0% against a calling range, you're still valuebetting.
It's a -EV valuebet (as long as FE doesn't make up for it), but still a valuebet because the goal is to let villain make a mistake by calling.
That he won't make that mistake is irrelevant for it being a valuebet or bluff. That's only relevant for your bet being + or - EV.

if you're 0% against his calling range you're not value betting, you're "turning your hand into a bluff"

say you shove top pair on a four straight board
he only calls with a straight
that's not a value bet, even though you may be 70% against his range, you're 0% against his calling range
that's a bluff

Well assuming you have the better hand here with A high when you bet then its considered a value bet because you are under the impression that you have the best hand so your c-bet is a value bet. If you assume you are behind but you think you can push him off his hand with a bet then its a bluff not a bet for value because you are under the impression that you are behind. You dont bet for value when your behind and know it. So imo its both. When you bet here on the flop your representing a hand (bluffing or semi bluffing) because you have nothing but A high but your also defending the value of your hand hence a value bet. Thats my 10 cents.

I'd lean towards calling it a "value bet" only because the majority of the players I play against would call here with Ax or King high, thinking that I'm "full 'a shit".

Against some smart players that I know, who'd I expect to raise with nothing, I'd also call this a value bet.

Only against a station is this a bluff and a poor play

I agree with MichaelGotAA, standard C-bet..