Thoughts on "Seeing where you're at"

Lately I have realized that there are many poker players out there who are betting and raising without really thinking about why they are doing so. If I were to ask them why they just bet or raised one very popular answer I'd be sure to hear alot would be, "to see where I'm at." Well I believe that allowing this to be one's sole reason for betting/raising is a leak that many players suffer from. The three main reasons to bet are (and please if anyone has another reason let me know):

1. Bluff
2. Value
3. Protect

Bluffing is obviously betting/raising when you do not have a good hand and are hoping that your opponent(s) folds. The most common type of bluff is probably the continuation bet (c-bet).

Value betting/raising is done when you are happy to get called because you have a good reason to believe that you are ahead and will only be getting called by weaker hands.

Protecting your hand against draws is simply betting enough to make it a mistake for your opponent(s) to call with a draw.

Betting/raising simply to "see where you're at" can be costly in the long run because many times it will only serve to build the pot with a hand you are unsure of and will only get your bets called by hands that beat you. I think many players get into a habit of betting/raising in certain situations and just think it's incorrect not to just because "that's what you are supposed to do," but if they stopped and thought about why they're doing what they're doing they could make more +EV decisions.

good post man

I like when opponents bet to "show me where they're at".

Originally Posted by Rondavu

I like when opponents bet to "show me where they're at".

Agreed. Maybe I shouldn't have posted this. I'm such an idiot.

No great post man. Betting "to see where you are at" is basically "betting to get called only by better hands". I can't think of any reasons to bet besides the ones you mentionned, from the top of my head. Except maybe the very rare "to see if he's for real"-reraise on a possible aggro bluffer who is trying to dominate the table.

It works better live, you get more information from the way they react to the bet.

Online, though, I'm finding it to be a big leak.

Originally Posted by dev

It works better live, you get more information from the way they react to the bet.

Online, though, I'm finding it to be a big leak.

I think it would be -EV in live games for the same reasons.

Information is power.

If I have played with a player for any length of time, I can tell with pretty good accuracy when they are calling on the draw, because they think they might be beat but want to call me anyway, or when they're slowplaying. You can't do that online.

Online now, I'm losing a bit of cash to people when villians act weak with a decent hand. It's good that I've been looking into a little bit more passive style of play, because otherwise it might just be very, very frustrating.

Your post kind of lumped betting and raising together, what sklansky says about raising should apply. He says there are 7 reasons to raise:

1. Value
2. To drive out opponents when you may have the best hand
3. To bluff/semi bluff
4. To get a free card
5. To gain information
6. To drive out worse hands when your own hand may be second best
7. To drive out better hands when a come hand bets

To shorten those Id say there are the following reasons:
1. Value
2. To drive out opponents
3. Bluff/Semi-Bluff
4. To get a free card
5. To get information

Originally Posted by martindcx1e

Originally Posted by dev

It works better live, you get more information from the way they react to the bet.

Online, though, I'm finding it to be a big leak.

I think it would be -EV in live games for the same reasons.

i think there are probably some differences between live and online, but thats for another thread

ToP rules
sklansky wasnt talking outta his ass for once when he wrote that book

Originally Posted by martindcx1e

Originally Posted by dev

It works better live, you get more information from the way they react to the bet.

Online, though, I'm finding it to be a big leak.

I think it would be -EV in live games for the same reasons.

You know when you think you are bluffing, however can you really ever know if you are protecting your hand or value betting or if you are even bluffing without complete information. Assume you bet out with King rag and your opponent folds. Is that a bluff? What if your opponent turns over Q rag. Was your bet now protecting your hand?

Betting to see where you are at is betting for information which isn't different from any other type of bet really, much like say a probe bet or betting to get a free card or betting to set up your opponent on the next street. I do think this works better in live games.

I had a recent situation in which I had 7 3 in the BB. I get to see a free flop which comes up 8 7 4. I bet out half the pot. I don't have much, only a very small piece which might just be good enough. This isn't a bluff, so is it a value bet or protection at this point? UTG raises me and it folds back around. My bet to "see where I was at" was answered forcefully. So I look at him and ask, "How far behind am I here? I can't be that far behind on this flop so let's see the turn." I call. The turn pairs the 4 and I say, "It looks like I caught up," and bet the pot. He folded the better hand.

My bet to see where I was at allowed me to bluff the pot away from him on a later street. Additionally this betting pattern allowed me to pick up a number of other pots later in the session as well. Again, I think these probe bets work better when you have a captive audience that has been watching your for the whole evening and you've been able to watch them. It was as much the betting pattern as the verbal jousting that set me up to take the pot down on the turn.

Originally Posted by strawman

Originally Posted by martindcx1e

Originally Posted by dev

It works better live, you get more information from the way they react to the bet.

Online, though, I'm finding it to be a big leak.

I think it would be -EV in live games for the same reasons.

You know when you think you are bluffing, however can you really ever know if you are protecting your hand or value betting or if you are even bluffing without complete information. Assume you bet out with King rag and your opponent folds. Is that a bluff? What if your opponent turns over Q rag. Was your bet now protecting your hand?

Betting to see where you are at is betting for information which isn't different from any other type of bet really, much like say a probe bet or betting to get a free card or betting to set up your opponent on the next street. I do think this works better in live games.

I had a recent situation in which I had 7 3 in the BB. I get to see a free flop which comes up 8 7 4. I bet out half the pot. I don't have much, only a very small piece which might just be good enough. This isn't a bluff, so is it a value bet or protection at this point? UTG raises me and it folds back around. My bet to "see where I was at" was answered forcefully. So I look at him and ask, "How far behind am I here? I can't be that far behind on this flop so let's see the turn." I call. The turn pairs the 4 and I say, "It looks like I caught up," and bet the pot. He folded the better hand.

My bet to see where I was at allowed me to bluff the pot away from him on a later street. Additionally this betting pattern allowed me to pick up a number of other pots later in the session as well. Again, I think these probe bets work better when you have a captive audience that has been watching your for the whole evening and you've been able to watch them. It was as much the betting pattern as the verbal jousting that set me up to take the pot down on the turn.

Your Kx vs. Qx hand would be a bluff. You have nothing and want your opponent to fold. If you knew that your opponent had that exact hand then it would be to protect your hand because you know you are ahead and by how much. In your 73 hand, I'm assuming it was heads up correct? If so then your bet was good because there was a good chance that your opponent did not hit but he could be drawing. He then let you know that you were probably beat. Your turn bet was a bluff and you gained the information at the same time that your opponent could be pushed off a hand. That information was a side effect of your turn bluff.

I bet/raise to get action. People think I'll put money in the pot on any two...and I will at times. The key is for them to guess when I have a hand and when I don't. Also I don't like making hard decisions, so I frequently bet to see if anyone is willing to fight for the pot and raise to see if I'm being bluffed. It could be a leak, BUT if your looser table image allows you to get paid off more then I think it more than balances out when you start playing for stacks with your set vs TPTK because Mr. Table-Cop is tired of folding to your raises.

Really, it IS about knowing where you are in a hand. True, people slow play monsters all the time, but you're not value betting your 2nd pair...you're trying to take the pot down or get out. If you get played back at, at least at the stakes I'm playing at, you go for the cheap showdown or lay it down. If you are investing any more after that without a REALLY SOLID read, you're leaking chips.

I think I'm rambling now.

u guys play bigger stakes and bigger games than me, but I find in NL25 (6 max especially) that betting to find "where I'm at" does a few good things -
1 - I pick up plenty of those orphan pots
2 - I give off the image that i'm not a rock. In my games I tend to get Lots of action when i've got a big hand because I bet at a lot of pots and play a lot of cards - When I say that I don't mean I come out betting 1/2 a pot to find out - in a 25NL game I've found that a 75c or $1 bet is usually effective at finding where your at -

Now, in the long term maybe it is a losing play - Do we all play the long term though? I have won some big pots (for $25NL) by giving action. I'll bleed away $2-3 in info bets when i can double through someone when I hit a real hand and he thinks i'm "betting for info" still....

basically what I mean is I don't think Poker is as Black & White as it's made out to be sometimes...We play against people- not cards -

just random - Im sure the play at $100NL is probably much different and it isn't as easy to trick those players....

was the info post about NL or Limit? Or does taht matter?

Originally Posted by Thee One

I bet/raise to get action. People think I'll put money in the pot on any two...and I will at times. The key is for them to guess when I have a hand and when I don't. Also I don't like making hard decisions, so I frequently bet to see if anyone is willing to fight for the pot and raise to see if I'm being bluffed.

If you are betting with any 2 that means you are bluffing and that is a good reason to bet/raise.

Originally Posted by Thee One

It could be a leak, BUT if your looser table image allows you to get paid off more then I think it more than balances out when you start playing for stacks with your set vs TPTK because Mr. Table-Cop is tired of folding to your raises.

You can have a loose table image while never betting solely to find out where you're at.

Originally Posted by Thee One

Really, it IS about knowing where you are in a hand. True, people slow play monsters all the time, but you're not value betting your 2nd pair...you're trying to take the pot down or get out.

If you are betting/raising 2nd pair it's probably because you are protecting your hand or are trying to bluff someone off a better hand. You're only betting/raising for value when you know you are up against a calling station.

Originally Posted by LimpinAintEZ

u guys play bigger stakes and bigger games than me, but I find in NL25 (6 max especially) that betting to find "where I'm at" does a few good things -
1 - I pick up plenty of those orphan pots
2 - I give off the image that i'm not a rock. In my games I tend to get Lots of action when i've got a big hand because I bet at a lot of pots and play a lot of cards - When I say that I don't mean I come out betting 1/2 a pot to find out - in a 25NL game I've found that a 75c or $1 bet is usually effective at finding where your at -

Now, in the long term maybe it is a losing play - Do we all play the long term though? I have won some big pots (for $25NL) by giving action. I'll bleed away $2-3 in info bets when i can double through someone when I hit a real hand and he thinks i'm "betting for info" still....

just random - Im sure the play at $100NL is probably much different and it isn't as easy to trick those players....

was the info post about NL or Limit? Or does taht matter?

I'm talking about NL because we are in a NL forum. If you are picking up lots of pots you are most likely bluffing lots which is a good reason to bet/raise. Finding out where you're at is an added benefit. I believe you can have a loose table image while never betting/raising solely to find out where you're at.

I agree w/ Thee One. There are a lot of good betting/raising situations that could fall under the term "information bets." Even a cbet could be termed an information bet - after all, is it a value bet or a bluff or are you protecting your hand?

If your hand is good enough to call one more decent sized bet on the next street, but not 2 more bets or one big bet, then I am a big fan of just betting/raising right now with the intention of mucking to any more aggro. When I do this, I don't know if I'm bluffing or protecting or value betting or betting for information, but the easiest way to describe it is betting to see where I'm at. I think this is a lot better than calling bets on the next 2 streets in the dark or mucking what might be the best hand.

Originally Posted by Ebene

Even a cbet could be termed an information bet - after all, is it a value bet or a bluff or are you protecting your hand?

A c-bet is a bluff. You have no hand and want your opponent(s) to fold.

Originally Posted by Ebene

If your hand is good enough to call one more decent sized bet on the next street, but not 2 more bets or one big bet, then I am a big fan of just betting/raising right now with the intention of mucking to any more aggro.

I don't really understand this. You bet or raise because you would call a decent bet on the next street? I don't understand this thinking.

Originally Posted by martindcx1e

Originally Posted by Thee One

I bet/raise to get action. People think I'll put money in the pot on any two...and I will at times. The key is for them to guess when I have a hand and when I don't. Also I don't like making hard decisions, so I frequently bet to see if anyone is willing to fight for the pot and raise to see if I'm being bluffed.

If you are betting with any 2 that means you are bluffing and that is a good reason to bet/raise.

Originally Posted by Thee One

It could be a leak, BUT if your looser table image allows you to get paid off more then I think it more than balances out when you start playing for stacks with your set vs TPTK because Mr. Table-Cop is tired of folding to your raises.

You can have a loose table image while never betting solely to find out where you're at.

Originally Posted by Thee One

Really, it IS about knowing where you are in a hand. True, people slow play monsters all the time, but you're not value betting your 2nd pair...you're trying to take the pot down or get out.

If you are betting/raising 2nd pair it's probably because you are protecting your hand or are trying to bluff someone off a better hand. You're only betting/raising for value when you know you are up against a calling station.

Then I think it's semantics. Betting to see where you are entails all of those things. The intended end result is to take down the pot, whether on the spot or after extracting maximum value. The term 'betting to see where you are' is what really seems like it bothers you, not the group of actions that actually comprise the generic term.

That said, I agree that a person who doesn't know why he is betting has a leak. But simply 'betting to see where you are' can have either a lot of wisdom or a lot of ignorance. Depends on what, if any, intent is behind the generic term.

Originally Posted by Thee One

Then I think it's semantics. Betting to see where you are entails all of those things. The intended end result is to take down the pot, whether on the spot or after extracting maximum value. The term 'betting to see where you are' is what really seems like it bothers you, not the group of actions that actually comprise the generic term.

That said, I agree that a person who doesn't know why he is betting has a leak. But simply 'betting to see where you are' can have either a lot of wisdom or a lot of ignorance. Depends on what, if any, intent is behind the generic term.

Yes that term is what bothers me because I think it leads to many -EV post flop decisions and will lose you $ in the long run.

A cbet isn't a bluff. Presumably you had the best hand going in, and your opponent will miss the flop over half the time, so if it HAS to be one thing then its a value bet. But its not that simple, its part value, part protection, part bluff, and part seeing where you're at.

If your hand is good enough to call one (but only one) more bet anyway, yet there is a possibility that if you check your opponent will bet twice and/or bet more than you are willing to call, then make one more bet instead. This protects your hand from being outdrawn, it gives you another way to win by having some better hands lay down, and it protects you from being bluffed off the best hand. I call that an information bet - call it what you will.

this is a good post but i think it depends a lot on style and situation. A good lag player will always bet to see where he's at. He may bet and continue floating in the hand to take the pot when he senses weakness. It also depends on the opponents.

I personally avoid too many feeler bets but sometimes they are necessary. If the pot is pretty big with 4 people in the hand and you hold 99 and the flop comes 10 8 3, you have to fire a feeler bet out there. Yes you are only called by the better hand 90 percent of the time, but if the pot is big you still must bet in this situation. It is not really a value bet because you are always called with the better hand, and it is not really a bluff because you have a hand. It is a feeler bet, and there are many other situations where you must use them. Yes, if feeler bets are used incorrectly, they may be a leak, but knowing when to use them is important and very profitable.

Good post. Here's a situation I always wonder about with regards to betting for information.

Say 200bb stacks.

I raise 5xbb UTG with AA and get one caller in LP.

flop comes Q 6 2 rainbow.

I bet 2/3 the pot (7xbb) and villan raises to 21xbb.

What do I do?

options are
reraise - which is purely and information bet
or call - which gains me no information and I have to act first on the turn.

most of the information you have during a hand is related to how you perceive your opponent to play. like in the AA hand, if you know he slowplays set on uncoordinated boards (like most people do), then you have alot more information then raising him back could provide.

Originally Posted by Ebene

A cbet isn't a bluff. Presumably you had the best hand going in, and your opponent will miss the flop over half the time, so if it HAS to be one thing then its a value bet. But its not that simple, its part value, part protection, part bluff, and part seeing where you're at.

If I raise 32o from the button and bet the flop when villain checks to me I am c-betting. I have the worst possible hand at the moment. If I have a missed AQ and am checked to, my c-bet is a bluff. It is not for value because I want to be called when I am value betting. I have nothing to protect either.

Originally Posted by Ebene

If your hand is good enough to call one (but only one) more bet anyway, yet there is a possibility that if you check your opponent will bet twice and/or bet more than you are willing to call, then make one more bet instead.

I'm sorry but this makes no sense to me. Maybe I am an idiot but that is very confusing to me.

Originally Posted by bigboy5540

I personally avoid too many feeler bets but sometimes they are necessary. If the pot is pretty big with 4 people in the hand and you hold 99 and the flop comes 10 8 3, you have to fire a feeler bet out there. Yes you are only called by the better hand 90 percent of the time, but if the pot is big you still must bet in this situation. It is not really a value bet because you are always called with the better hand, and it is not really a bluff because you have a hand. It is a feeler bet, and there are many other situations where you must use them. Yes, if feeler bets are used incorrectly, they may be a leak, but knowing when to use them is important and very profitable.

If I were to bet in that situation it would be because I think my hand could very well be best at the moment and I don't want anyone drawing cheaply. If I am OOP against many opponents I am fine surrendering a hand like that.

Originally Posted by Irisheyes

Good post. Here's a situation I always wonder about with regards to betting for information.

Say 200bb stacks.

I raise 5xbb UTG with AA and get one caller in LP.

flop comes Q 6 2 rainbow.

I bet 2/3 the pot (7xbb) and villan raises to 21xbb.

What do I do?

options are
reraise - which is purely and information bet
or call - which gains me no information and I have to act first on the turn.

Are you joking???

You got raise 21bb or a tenth of your stack. You had better know now where you are in the hand. What are you going to do? risk half your stack on a raise and essentually commit the rest of it on a raise??? FOR INFORMATION? That isn't even RELIABLE?????

Here are your options. Fold because you think your opponent hit a set. Reraise for VALUE against a strong Q. Call and plan to follow a WA/WB line. Or call to trap your opponent on a later street.

Originally Posted by martindcx1e

Originally Posted by bigboy5540

I personally avoid too many feeler bets but sometimes they are necessary. If the pot is pretty big with 4 people in the hand and you hold 99 and the flop comes 10 8 3, you have to fire a feeler bet out there. Yes you are only called by the better hand 90 percent of the time, but if the pot is big you still must bet in this situation. It is not really a value bet because you are always called with the better hand, and it is not really a bluff because you have a hand. It is a feeler bet, and there are many other situations where you must use them. Yes, if feeler bets are used incorrectly, they may be a leak, but knowing when to use them is important and very profitable.

If I were to bet in that situation it would be because I think my hand could very well be best at the moment and I don't want anyone drawing cheaply. If I am OOP against many opponents I am fine surrendering a hand like that.

I agree. If I bet here, I'm also betting to protect against a bluff. Yes, that is right. Sometimes it is best to bet, to protect your hand from air, not just draws (ie. a blocking bet). A standard block would be to lead with trips or worse on a 3-flush river card OOP. This is a protection bet/bluff not a "feeler bet".

LOL of course it is a feeler bet pirate. man if you are called you know you are probably beat. If you are raised you know now that you are beat. That is the definition of "feeler bet". cmon man.

A cbet is not necessarily a bluff. It's a bet that continues to rep the hand you repped PF, bluff or not.

Probably the least important point here but I think a cbet is part hand protection and part semi-bluff.

If you had the best hand going to the flop (headsup) you probably have the best hand now but it is very vulnerable. If your opponent has hit a 7 with their 67s then you hope they fold, but if they dont you still have 6 outs to help you.

Originally Posted by samsonite2100

A cbet is not necessarily a bluff. It's a bet that continues to rep the hand you repped PF, bluff or not.

Representing a hand is what bluffing is. If you hit your hand on the flop then it would no longer be a c-bet.

Irisheyes wrote:
Good post. Here's a situation I always wonder about with regards to betting for information.

Say 200bb stacks.

I raise 5xbb UTG with AA and get one caller in LP.

flop comes Q 6 2 rainbow.

I bet 2/3 the pot (7xbb) and villan raises to 21xbb.

What do I do?

options are
reraise - which is purely and information bet
or call - which gains me no information and I have to act first on the turn.


Are you joking???

You got raise 21bb or a tenth of your stack. You had better know now where you are in the hand. What are you going to do? risk half your stack on a raise and essentually commit the rest of it on a raise??? FOR INFORMATION? That isn't even RELIABLE?????

Here are your options. Fold because you think your opponent hit a set. Reraise for VALUE against a strong Q. Call and plan to follow a WA/WB line. Or call to trap your opponent on a later street.

Thats a hell of a lot of information you need to get without betting.

Originally Posted by bigboy5540

LOL of course it is a feeler bet pirate. man if you are called you know you are probably beat. If you are raised you know now that you are beat. That is the definition of "feeler bet". cmon man.

I don't agree. You aren't nessesarily beat. How many times have you been called by junk? how many times are you raised with junk? in your example, villian could easily have J9 for an open ended draw. He may raise you, or he may just call. Does it mean you are beat?

Obviously not. It does help narrow down his range, but I still stand by my original post that the bet is PRIMARILY for protection.

Originally Posted by Miffed22001

Irisheyes wrote:
Good post. Here's a situation I always wonder about with regards to betting for information.

Say 200bb stacks.

I raise 5xbb UTG with AA and get one caller in LP.

flop comes Q 6 2 rainbow.

I bet 2/3 the pot (7xbb) and villan raises to 21xbb.

What do I do?

options are
reraise - which is purely and information bet
or call - which gains me no information and I have to act first on the turn.


Are you joking???

You got raise 21bb or a tenth of your stack. You had better know now where you are in the hand. What are you going to do? risk half your stack on a raise and essentually commit the rest of it on a raise??? FOR INFORMATION? That isn't even RELIABLE?????

Here are your options. Fold because you think your opponent hit a set. Reraise for VALUE against a strong Q. Call and plan to follow a WA/WB line. Or call to trap your opponent on a later street.

Thats a hell of a lot of information you need to get without betting.

You already have alot of information. If you have been at the table a while, you should know his tendoncies. Is he very aggressive with TP? is he a set farmer? Is he tricky? Would he reraise with air on a PFR to induce a fold.

Reraising here is definately NOT strictly for information. If I reraise here it is because I think I have the best hand most of the time and it is for value only.

Representing a hand is what bluffing is. If you hit your hand on the flop then it would no longer be a c-bet.

Incorrect. If you raised PF, hit TPTK on the flop and bet at it, that is also a cbet. A cbet is any bet that continues action from the previous round of betting. Semantics, yes, but that is the actual definition.

Originally Posted by samsonite2100

Representing a hand is what bluffing is. If you hit your hand on the flop then it would no longer be a c-bet.

Incorrect. If you raised PF, hit TPTK on the flop and bet at it, that is also a cbet. A cbet is any bet that continues action from the previous round of betting. Semantics, yes, but that is the actual definition.

Guess so. I think the term is generally reserved for when you miss your hand though. At least that's what it seems like around here.

Yeah, that's how it's usually used. I'm just being nitpicky for no good reason.

Originally Posted by samsonite2100

Yeah, that's how it's usually used. I'm just being nitpicky for no good reason.

lol it's hard to resist sometimes. like i want to scream at everyone who has said "raise" when they mean "bet" in these last few threads of mine.

From a lagg perspective...
If they see you show down 57o(god) for a straight, and 36s for a flush, and QQ for queens full... they can find a reason to fold no matter what the texture of the flop.

Originally Posted by martindcx1e

Your Kx vs. Qx hand would be a bluff. You have nothing and want your opponent to fold. If you knew that your opponent had that exact hand then it would be to protect your hand because you know you are ahead and by how much. In your 73 hand, I'm assuming it was heads up correct?

The scenario I listed inidcated I wasn't heads up.

I'm comfortable with probe and continuation bets. If I want to see where I'm at I'll throw out a probe bet. If I put in a raise pre flop I'm likely to throw out a continuation bet even if I don't hit simply because I was the pre flop raiser and not because I'm trying to bluff at it. Sure it might be a -EV play for the hand but poker is long term. If I raise pre flop and only bet the flop when I hit and check/fold when I miss does that make pre flop raising a leak since now my opponents have an excellent tell on my part.

You seem determined to fit all the scenarios that have been discussed here into three neat and tidy categories and I think that is a leak.

Originally Posted by piratepeaty

Originally Posted by bigboy5540

LOL of course it is a feeler bet pirate. man if you are called you know you are probably beat. If you are raised you know now that you are beat. That is the definition of "feeler bet". cmon man.

I don't agree. You aren't nessesarily beat. How many times have you been called by junk? how many times are you raised with junk? in your example, villian could easily have J9 for an open ended draw. He may raise you, or he may just call. Does it mean you are beat?

Obviously not. It does help narrow down his range, but I still stand by my original post that the bet is PRIMARILY for protection.

pirate ur an idiot. of course you can be raised by junk on any hand. yes even feeler bets can get raised by junk. surprise surprise..this doesn't mean its not in fact still a feeler bet. LOL you are funny man. i cracked up when i read this. so can u define a situation where you feeler bet cannot get raised with junk?? LOL

u can always get raised by junk but you are still attempting to see where you are at when u make the bet. and pirate are you trying to say there is no such thing as a feeler bet?//?

Originally Posted by bigboy5540

Originally Posted by piratepeaty

Originally Posted by bigboy5540

LOL of course it is a feeler bet pirate. man if you are called you know you are probably beat. If you are raised you know now that you are beat. That is the definition of "feeler bet". cmon man.

I don't agree. You aren't nessesarily beat. How many times have you been called by junk? how many times are you raised with junk? in your example, villian could easily have J9 for an open ended draw. He may raise you, or he may just call. Does it mean you are beat?

Obviously not. It does help narrow down his range, but I still stand by my original post that the bet is PRIMARILY for protection.

pirate ur an idiot. of course you can be raised by junk on any hand. yes even feeler bets can get raised by junk. surprise surprise..this doesn't mean its not in fact still a feeler bet. LOL you are funny man. i cracked up when i read this. so can u define a situation where you feeler bet cannot get raised with junk?? LOL

You should try to understand a person's point before insulting them. You may even learn something. The fact that you can get raised by junk means the information you are getting from your bet isn't reliable. It's also extremely expensive with relation to the pot size.

My point is, the information you get from a 'feeler' bet is not reliable unless your opponent is extremely predictable. Even then, sometimes your opponent may suprise you.

And if you're calling me an idiot, you might as well call David Sklansky an idiot as well. Theory of Poker says "consider any information gained [by raising] as an extra benefit of a raise you are making for other reasons." I whole-heartedly agree.

I know that 'feeler bets' exist. I know that people bet to "see where they are". Personally, I think it is a huge waste of money. I'm happy to say that raising or betting strictly for information is NOT in my poker arsenal.

{musical interlude}

Originally Posted by piratepeaty

My point is, the information you get from a 'feeler' bet is not reliable unless your opponent is extremely predictable. Even then, sometimes your opponent may suprise you.

And if you're calling me an idiot, you might as well call David Sklansky an idiot as well. Theory of Poker says "consider any information gained [by raising] as an extra benefit of a raise you are making for other reasons." I whole-heartedly agree.

I know that 'feeler bets' exist. I know that people bet to "see where they are". Personally, I think it is a huge waste of money. I'm happy to say that raising or betting strictly for information is NOT in my poker arsenal.

I fail to see the consistency in the argument here. You start off with a feeler bet than talk about TOP and raising, than return to a feeler bet.

HOH has a section pertaining to probe bets and seeing where he stands. It's obviously in Harrington's arsenal and I'm in no position to argue with him.

I can go along with not raising to see where you are at, but I don't think a probe bet is neccessarily a waste of money. To each their own.

Although now that I rethink the situation my likehood of a probe bet when more than two others see the flop is almost not existant. If I bet in that situation my intentions lean more towards limiting the field.

Originally Posted by Warpe

{musical interlude}

I'm starting to lose the thread of this myself and seem to be getting lost in the semantics as well. My read on this thread is another 20 post til Godwin's Law takes effect.

In a way, isn't "betting to see where you're at" like a c-bet? You're giving yourself a chance to take the pot down right then and there, and if you get called, it's "fold to any action if I don't improve." Granted if you're putting feeler bets out all the time an aware player will see it, but if used in the right situation against the right player it's just a bluff with the worst case scenario of you gathering information.

I'm starting to lose the thread of this myself and seem to be getting lost in the semantics as well. My read on this thread is another 20 post til Godwin's Law takes effect.

Didn't the Nazis invent feeler bets?

Originally Posted by "strawman

HOH has a section pertaining to probe bets and seeing where he stands. It's obviously in Harrington's arsenal and I'm in no position to argue with him.

All I am saying is that these 'probes' can be looked at from a different angle. I think it is important to look at the fundamental reasons for doing anything. It may just be a matter of semantics, as the end result is usually the same.

Lets say you have a good, but not great hand. You think it might be best, but you are unsure. Now you may say you want to bet for information. I say, you have more reasons to bet.

1) Value - you think your hand may be best.
2) Protection against draws- you may want to bet to protect your hand from all kinds of draws. Giving someone infinite odds would be a mistake, if you have the best hand.
3) Protection against bluffs- Your hand may be strong enough to bet, but not strong enough to call a bet.
4) Bluff - your hand is good, but you may fold a better one.
5)Information - your opponents action will help determine the next course of action.

You may want to sum all this up and say it is a 'feeler' bet or a 'probe' bet, but it should be obvious that there are reasons that come before gaining information. Especially, because half of these reasons may cause your opponent to fold and you no longer need the information.

Originally Posted by strawman

The scenario I listed inidcated I wasn't heads up.

I'm comfortable with probe and continuation bets. If I want to see where I'm at I'll throw out a probe bet. If I put in a raise pre flop I'm likely to throw out a continuation bet even if I don't hit simply because I was the pre flop raiser and not because I'm trying to bluff at it. Sure it might be a -EV play for the hand but poker is long term. If I raise pre flop and only bet the flop when I hit and check/fold when I miss does that make pre flop raising a leak since now my opponents have an excellent tell on my part.

You seem determined to fit all the scenarios that have been discussed here into three neat and tidy categories and I think that is a leak.

I've never said that I advocate a "bet only when you hit" approach. If you bet when you have nothing then you are bluffing. Call it a "bet because I was the pre-flop raiser" or whatever else you want but you are trying to bluff.

Originally Posted by strawman

Sure it might be a -EV play for the hand but poker is long term.

If a play is -EV for that hand then it is -EV every time you get into that situation in the future. If it's -EV it's always -EV. That is what the long term is all about, making the most +EV decisions as possible. Just because you take down a pot doesn't make the play +EV. Do you think you can make -EV decisions that magically become +EV in the long run?

Originally Posted by IrishGilly

In a way, isn't "betting to see where you're at" like a c-bet? You're giving yourself a chance to take the pot down right then and there, and if you get called, it's "fold to any action if I don't improve." Granted if you're putting feeler bets out all the time an aware player will see it, but if used in the right situation against the right player it's just a bluff with the worst case scenario of you gathering information.

Generally when you c-bet you want your opponent to fold because you have nothing. In a way ahead/way behind situation (which is the situation I am saying people shouldn't be betting/raising in) you don't want your opponent to fold because if they do then you were so far ahead of them that really the only way you would make money in the hand would be to let them take a stab at it. You don't want them to call either so this is why you shouldn't bet in that situation. A bet is -EV either way.

Originally Posted by piratepeaty

I know that 'feeler bets' exist. I know that people bet to "see where they are". Personally, I think it is a huge waste of money. I'm happy to say that raising or betting strictly for information is NOT in my poker arsenal.

Amen brother!

[quote=piratepeaty][quote="strawman
Lets say you have a good, but not great hand. You think it might be best, but you are unsure. Now you may say you want to bet for information. I say, you have more reasons to bet.

1) Value - you think your hand may be best.
2) Protection against draws- you may want to bet to protect your hand from all kinds of draws. Giving someone infinite odds would be a mistake, if you have the best hand.
3) Protection against bluffs- Your hand may be strong enough to bet, but not strong enough to call a bet.
4) Bluff - your hand is good, but you may fold a better one.
5)Information - your opponents action will help determine the next course of action.
[/quote]

I think we're just arguing semantics pirate, because I agree w/ all of this, and this is what I mean when I talk about an information bet/raise.

I think the "bet to see where you're at" should only be done when the probability is in your favor that you have the better hand. If you do that, it's +EV isn't it?

Just recalled an interesting hand I played at foxwoods 1/2...

I'm(~120, second hand) MP1.
V(~500, 7hrs in) is UTG

I have A6s

V calls, fold, I call, 5 calls, blinds call, 9 to the flop (well, it's a loose fucking game, man!).

Pot is $18

Flop is 642r

V bets $10
I make it $30 (to see where I'm at )
Folds around to V

He thinks for a while, stares at me like a deer caught in headlights, and folds rockets face up and proclaims, "You've got 3 5!"

I mutter something about my oreos and rake the pot.

Useless eplogue: He begged to see my hand, so I showed him, and he gave a tired kind of look and cashed out.

Originally Posted by dev

Just recalled an interesting hand I played at foxwoods 1/2...

I'm(~120, second hand) MP1.
V(~500, 7hrs in) is UTG

I have A6s

V calls, fold, I call, 5 calls, blinds call, 9 to the flop (well, it's a loose fucking game, man!).

Pot is $18

Flop is 642r

V bets $10
I make it $30 (to see where I'm at )
Folds around to V

He thinks for a while, stares at me like a deer caught in headlights, and folds rockets face up and proclaims, "You've got 3 5!"

I mutter something about my oreos and rake the pot.

Useless eplogue: He begged to see my hand, so I showed him, and he gave a tired kind of look and cashed out.

If I were to raise in this situation it would be to protect my hand against straight draws and overs. If you just call then there are many players left to act behind you and it's 10 to them to win 38. You find out where you're at as an added benefit.

Originally Posted by IowaSkinsFan

I think the "bet to see where you're at" should only be done when the probability is in your favor that you have the better hand. If you do that, it's +EV isn't it?

I don't think it should ever be done
It's not +EV in way ahead/way behind situations

Originally Posted by martindcx1e

If I were to raise in this situation it would be to protect my hand against straight draws and overs. If you just call then there are many players left to act behind you and it's 10 to them to win 38. You find out where you're at as an added benefit.

You give them 4:1 pot odds and you're not gaining much information at all.
Anyway, in this example I was still feeling the table out and developing an image.

Originally Posted by martindcx1e

Originally Posted by IowaSkinsFan

I think the "bet to see where you're at" should only be done when the probability is in your favor that you have the better hand. If you do that, it's +EV isn't it?

I don't think it should ever be done
It's not +EV in way ahead/way behind situations

How is it not +EV in way ahead situations? I'm confused.

I figure the labels don't matter. There are a lot of advantages to betting, and the more of them you can add up the more reason you have to bet. Maybe protecting your hand adds a lot and gaining info adds a variable amount based on how much info you get and what it's worth (can it give you an EXACT hand?).

EDIT:
I think the point of this thread is that you need a good reason to bet or raise. A lot of players use information as a reason when it's not a good enough one. Thats is a leak, leaks suck.

End of story?

Originally Posted by dev

Originally Posted by martindcx1e

If I were to raise in this situation it would be to protect my hand against straight draws and overs. If you just call then there are many players left to act behind you and it's 10 to them to win 38. You find out where you're at as an added benefit.

You give them 4:1 pot odds and you're not gaining much information at all.
Anyway, in this example I was still feeling the table out and developing an image.

I'm saying that if you just call you're giving them good odds. So it's probably not a good idea to just call. I prefer a raise, but I wouldn't be raising for info. I would raise to give bad odds, and the info would be a bonus. I didn't mean it to look like you get info from calling.

Originally Posted by dev

Originally Posted by martindcx1e

Originally Posted by IowaSkinsFan

I think the "bet to see where you're at" should only be done when the probability is in your favor that you have the better hand. If you do that, it's +EV isn't it?

I don't think it should ever be done
It's not +EV in way ahead/way behind situations

How is it not +EV in way ahead situations? I'm confused.

If you are way ahead then the only way you win anymore money is by letting your opponent take a stab at the pot.

Originally Posted by IrishGilly

In a way, isn't "betting to see where you're at" like a c-bet? You're giving yourself a chance to take the pot down right then and there, and if you get called, it's "fold to any action if I don't improve." Granted if you're putting feeler bets out all the time an aware player will see it, but if used in the right situation against the right player it's just a bluff with the worst case scenario of you gathering information.

OMG Hi I'm Irish and I like fishing!!

Originally Posted by Irisheyes

Originally Posted by IrishGilly

In a way, isn't "betting to see where you're at" like a c-bet? You're giving yourself a chance to take the pot down right then and there, and if you get called, it's "fold to any action if I don't improve." Granted if you're putting feeler bets out all the time an aware player will see it, but if used in the right situation against the right player it's just a bluff with the worst case scenario of you gathering information.

OMG Hi I'm Irish and I like fishing!!

<---Irish

Originally Posted by martindcx1e

Originally Posted by Irisheyes

Originally Posted by IrishGilly

In a way, isn't "betting to see where you're at" like a c-bet? You're giving yourself a chance to take the pot down right then and there, and if you get called, it's "fold to any action if I don't improve." Granted if you're putting feeler bets out all the time an aware player will see it, but if used in the right situation against the right player it's just a bluff with the worst case scenario of you gathering information.

OMG Hi I'm Irish and I like fishing!!

<---Irish

Wow there's loads of us!

Wait hold on, are you like 1/32 Irish but really american like 'rilla thinks he's Irish?

Originally Posted by Irisheyes

Originally Posted by martindcx1e

Originally Posted by Irisheyes

Originally Posted by IrishGilly

In a way, isn't "betting to see where you're at" like a c-bet? You're giving yourself a chance to take the pot down right then and there, and if you get called, it's "fold to any action if I don't improve." Granted if you're putting feeler bets out all the time an aware player will see it, but if used in the right situation against the right player it's just a bluff with the worst case scenario of you gathering information.

OMG Hi I'm Irish and I like fishing!!

<---Irish

Wow there's loads of us!

Wait hold on, are you like 1/32 Irish but really american like 'rilla thinks he's Irish?

My last name is Patrick

[quote=Ebene][quote=piratepeaty]

Originally Posted by "strawman
Lets say you have a good, but not great hand. You think it might be best, but you are unsure. Now you may say you want to bet for information. I say, you have more reasons to bet.

1) Value - you think your hand may be best.
2) Protection against draws- you may want to bet to protect your hand from all kinds of draws. Giving someone infinite odds would be a mistake, if you have the best hand.
3) Protection against bluffs- Your hand may be strong enough to bet, but not strong enough to call a bet.
4) Bluff - your hand is good, but you may fold a better one.
5)Information - your opponents action will help determine the next course of action.
[/quote

I think we're just arguing semantics pirate, because I agree w/ all of this, and this is what I mean when I talk about an information bet/raise.

yes

Originally Posted by strawman

Originally Posted by piratepeaty

My point is, the information you get from a 'feeler' bet is not reliable unless your opponent is extremely predictable. Even then, sometimes your opponent may suprise you.

And if you're calling me an idiot, you might as well call David Sklansky an idiot as well. Theory of Poker says "consider any information gained [by raising] as an extra benefit of a raise you are making for other reasons." I whole-heartedly agree.

I know that 'feeler bets' exist. I know that people bet to "see where they are". Personally, I think it is a huge waste of money. I'm happy to say that raising or betting strictly for information is NOT in my poker arsenal.

I fail to see the consistency in the argument here. You start off with a feeler bet than talk about TOP and raising, than return to a feeler bet.

HOH has a section pertaining to probe bets and seeing where he stands. It's obviously in Harrington's arsenal and I'm in no position to argue with him.

I can go along with not raising to see where you are at, but I don't think a probe bet is neccessarily a waste of money. To each their own.

Although now that I rethink the situation my likehood of a probe bet when more than two others see the flop is almost not existant. If I bet in that situation my intentions lean more towards limiting the field.

i also fail to see any logic in ur arguement pirate.

They mean they just fail.

If you have a strong hand you need to bet out. If you flop middle pair, you know where you're at and you don't need to contribute right now.

"Check", and see what happens. If you're raised pre-flop, you know where you're at.

Feeler bets make no sense.

Originally Posted by TheSyphon

NC Bump

FYP.

is that pirate peaty who was playing against Sauce in his 200NL vid

Originally Posted by pantherhound

is that pirate peaty who was playing against Sauce in his 200NL vid

that's what i was wondering too. i think it is.

Good post, I have a hard time deciding when to do things like C-Bet though.

Bump. Is this stickied or at least put into a digest of essential threads?

Seems to me that after reading post after post in this thread... one reason for betting (and to me the biggest reason for betting, besides for value) has not even been Mentioned........
Bet because you give yourself a chance to win the hand right now, by giving your opponent the opportunity to fold.

This equals fold equity, aka bluff, reason #1. You think you are behind but bet because you think opponent won't call or raise.