Test

Originally Posted by daviddem

Yeah, fair enough, it is just a question of terminology I agree.

The hand doesn't make much sense as you say but there are other similar situations where the same thing happens for example with an OESFD vs top pair and we have only enough left to give max 3:2 to villain on his call.

I also get the "3rd reason for betting" from Easy Game, and I understand that it is never a sufficient reason to bet on its own. As you put it so well, it's a sweetener. Although in this case there is more sugar than coffee in the pot.

Thanks for taking the time.

I think you answered your own question with the bold. He says its never a sufficient reason to bet on its own. When he says this I think he means "its never a sufficient reason to bet on its own, IN PRACTICE". In theory it could be. In the example you created it is because the example is unrealistic and would never happen in practice during play (ie with this stack and pot size and knowing your opponents exact hand)

Originally Posted by kfaess

I think you answered your own question with the bold. He says its never a sufficient reason to bet on its own. When he says this I think he means "its never a sufficient reason to bet on its own, IN PRACTICE". In theory it could be. In the example you created it is because the example is unrealistic and would never happen in practice during play (ie with this stack and pot size and knowing your opponents exact hand)

This type of situation where we appear to be betting for value but would like our opponents to fold certain hands that are behind happen more often than people think.

A relatively common example is something like a flop of Ks9s8s with AsTc against a low PP holding no spades. We are roughly a 57/43, but with SPRs of 1 or less we're shoving hoping that he folds these types of hands, realizing that if he calls we're still ahead.

This type of situation where we appear to be betting for value but would like our opponents to fold certain hands that are behind happen more often than people think.

A relatively common example is something like a flop of Ks9s8s with AsTc against a low PP holding no spades. We are roughly a 57/43, but with SPRs of 1 or less we're shoving hoping that he folds these types of hands, realizing that if he calls we're still ahead.

I agree that a similar situation can happen while we're playing, but we're never betting just to get our opponent to fold their equity. We're usually betting either for value or as a bluff, and the fact that our opponent sometimes folds his equity when he shouldn't means our bet is a little bit better than if he didn't.

My main point is that most examples you can come up with where the only reason we're betting is to get our opponent to fold his equity share (when the correct play would be to call) are unrealistic. In the example you gave, how do we know he has exactly "a low PP with no spade". If he's a professional short stacker he probably wouldn't be playing low PP's with such a shallow stack. The only other way he would get to the flop with a low PP and a SPR of 1 is if he's a fish, in which case we can never know with certainty what his exact range is. Even after thousands of hands with someone I don't think we can come close to knowing someone's exact hand. And if we can't know someone's exact hand, we're playing against a range of hands. Which means that we're either value betting or bluffing against that range, but against certain hands in that range we're just hoping he folds his equity.

Originally Posted by kfaess

I agree that a similar situation can happen while we're playing, but we're never betting just to get our opponent to fold their equity.

this is 100% wrong.

Ok well I'll accept I'm probably wrong since players that are much better than myself are disagreeing.

I think the 5-bet example is a really good one, and I guess there are probably other situations that I'm not really considering.

Originally Posted by kfaess

Ok well I'll accept I'm probably wrong since players that are much better than myself are disagreeing.

I think the 5-bet example is a really good one, and I guess there are probably other situations that I'm not really considering.

@the bold, this is soooooo the point and I'm glad you realized it since the majority of people don't. Time to start dodging bullets and shit Matrix-style.

For another one of those "free your mind" ideas, there are spots where we can legitimately bet to get better hands to fold *and* worse hands to call at the same time. Can you come up with one?

Originally Posted by spoonitnow

@the bold, this is soooooo the point and I'm glad you realized it since the majority of people don't. Time to start dodging bullets and shit Matrix-style.

For another one of those "free your mind" ideas, there are spots where we can legitimately bet to get better hands to fold *and* worse hands to call at the same time. Can you come up with one?

How bout when we're three way with a fish and a reg. The fish checks, we make a value bet against the fish but the same bet against the reg is a bluff.