Printable View
Betting small (comparatively, like .10c) when I want to see the turn and river because I know that villain will bet high (like 4x the pot) if I show any sign of weakness, i.e. check/call.
Obviously it's opponent dependent, I don't do it all the time.
It's more a leak than it's pot control tbh. If I'd seen you do that a couple of times I might have a note on you that indicates that an undersized bet indicates weakness and I'd consider raising even blank cards because you are clearly signalling weakness and then it's profitable to bluff you.
Also - don't speak in absolute amounts. (Betting like $0.10) What you are betting should always be relative to the size of the pot.
Make sure you only bet an amount that you could conceivably be betting with a hand that has enough value that your opponent is put to a tough decision. You don't want to take actions that can only ever be read as weak (with only weak hands).
Ok thanks for your response.Quote:
Originally Posted by Erpel
I'm slightly confused though. The sense I get from the prominent posters on here (and online poker bods in general) is: "Forget anything outside of ABC poker". So, you advocate betting/raising when you have a hand or if it's +EV (think that's the right context) to do so, never or rarely limping etc etc
What about bluffs, deception etc?
Should one not *try* (even though it's statistically improbable) to win every pot no matter how small and no matter what tactics?
Or is winning at online poker simply a mathematical game?
I'm not getting on at anyon, but I just get a different sense of poker as perpetuated here, than I do playing live, or even watching live poker.
I think it's fantastic that you're thinking and asking questions.
I think (and will be happy to be corrected) that what I'm describing here is ABC poker. In fact it has a lot to do with deception and bluffing. I did not say that you should only bet when you have a hand. What I said is that every bet you make should have the threat of a real hand backing it.
So if I raise PF in late position and my opponent calls out of the blind and the flop comes A93r - I bet. Because having been in late position and therefore opening a wide range a good part of that wide range is crappy aces. And since there's an ace on the flop by betting I represent top pair.
If I bet a third of the pot in that situation it's likely that my opponent will think - you are pretending to have top pair, but if you REALLY had top pair you would want to get paid. By your bet size you are telling me that you don't actually have it and are bluffing. If I bet 2/3 pot every time I decide to bet my bet is more believable. Which means I can bluff a lot with 2/3 pot because my opponent will think that I actually have the top pair and will fold decent hands.
That's where the deception comes in. You take an action that can mean either strength or a bluff and it's hard for the opponent to determine which it is. This element of deception is part of ABC poker - it's an often assumed part going under the headline of don't be predictable and readable.
I advocate betting/raising when it is +EV to do so. Or rather, when it is more +EV than calling or folding. But the factors that make it + or - EV is not limited to the cards in your hand and on the flop. There is a huge amount of information available and the more of it you take into account the better you are at estimating what the most +EV decision is to make in a given situation. Most of it has to do with what cards your opponent is likely to have (and your equity against those hand ranges) and what he is likely to do with them if you carry out any of the actions available to you.
You should not try to win every pot. What you should do in every hand is to make the move that you project with your knowledge and assessment of the table and the opponents is likely to lead you to the biggest profit - make the most +EV decision at every point. Sometimes the play that gives you the best chance of winning the pot gives you a low enough chance of winning the pot and costs enough to make that you actually lose money over time if you make that play in hundred hands just like this. And then it becomes the wrong thing to do in every one of them.
Poker is not a purely mathematical game. It is very much a game of estimation. You can perform maths on those estimations and determine based on assumptions or estimations which is likely to be the more profitable play in any given situation. You do need to know those maths. But to become truly better at poker you need to focus on making better estimations.
What you're talking about is making a blocking bet. However, most aggressive players with take a minbet or a 2xBB bet pretty much the same way they would take a check and raise it up. If you're going to make a blocking bet you need to figure out their range/ and especially in this case what your range to them could be. Unless you're playing vs someone with absolutely nothing or someone who is terrible you'll probably come off quite weak and unless you're trying to induce a raise so you can get the money in betting so small is really just throwing a few extra cents away every time.
What kind of hands do you want to see the turn and river with? Are you talking about draws? I generally don't want to see another street with a draw, I want to take it down right now. I want to see a showdown with B type range hands.
Of course that's generally speaking. Post a hand for specific advice.
I prefer check calling to betting small- it will scare an aggressive player off more because he'll be afraid his bluffs will be called. Maybe wait till you have a strong hand (TPTK, two pair, set) and check raise all in. IF a certain villian is always going to overbet if you check then why not wait till you have the best hand and make him bluff at the wrong time?