|
|
 Originally Posted by kfaess
You define a value bet as a bet where we have more than 50% equity vs a calling range. In one book I've read the author defines a value bet as a bet to get worse hands to call and a bluff as a bet to get better hands to fold (and he plays high stakes btw). Which definition is correct? I' m not really sure.
Value bet -- the second definition is an oversimplification of the real goal, which is to bet when you have more than 50% equity against his calling range. His range might include better hands than you that will call, but as long as you are ahead of the calling range then your value bet is successful (because it is better than checking behind).
Think about it -- a value bet, by definition, profits when the villain calls. For every dollar we put into the pot, the villain has to match it. If we have more than 50% equity, we get our dollar back plus some percentage of the villain's dollar. But if we have less than 50% equity, then for every dollar we put into the pot we get less than 1 dollar back at showdown. To make matters worse, it's safe to assume that the villain's calling range is stronger than his total range, so we also get a smaller percentage of the original pot.
Bluff -- true, you are trying to get better hands to fold, but that's also incomplete. First off, you need to get enough hands to fold to make it worth your bet -- folding out 10% of his range, all of which beats you, is a losing proposition if you bet the size of the pot as a bluff. To bluff profitably, you should only bluff if it has a higher EV than checking behind.
|
Reply With Quote
