Hero CO ($10): :9h::9s:
Villain BTN ($5): :ah::kh:
Board: :7d::6c::2h:
Pot: $12
Hero is a top notch hand reader and thinks villain's range is AKs.
Hero bets $5
Why?
Printable View
Hero CO ($10): :9h::9s:
Villain BTN ($5): :ah::kh:
Board: :7d::6c::2h:
Pot: $12
Hero is a top notch hand reader and thinks villain's range is AKs.
Hero bets $5
Why?
Because we're all-in and we think Villain will fold.
two reasons; one, we stand to potentially get value from a worse hand (dry board, we lack reads on villain etc. but it's obviously not inconceivable that he may call here) and two, alternatively, villain may fold out his equity in the hand with some probability.
That's right, but what gets at me is that Hero should hope for outcome 2).Quote:
Originally Posted by Penneywize
So he bets and hopes that a worse hand folds.
Is that still a value bet?
You could always run a quick EV calculation (I'm not at home and so don't have pokerstove installed unfortunately) and figure out whether our expectation when villain calls is greater than when villain folds. I assume it is. Given this, being the risk-lovers that we are -- there's a log-utility argument somewhere that really doesn't apply here (but I strangely thought I'd mention it nonetheless?) -- we'd technically 'prefer' that the villain calls.
The thing that's important, to me, is that we made a correct bet on this flop. We can't control our villain's actions here; just know that we put him in a virtually impossible situation - largely thanks to our supposed hand-reading skills i.e. we know the villain's exact equity.
Anyhow, as to your bit about 'wanting the villain to fold worse'. As I pointed out, if the calculation comes out that our expectation from the villain calling is greater than that of his folding, this isn't actually true. But let's assume, for whatever reason, that that is not the case; that we have a greater expectation from his folding. There are multiple ways for this to be true i.e. his equity is higher than 24%, the potsize is large enough and he has so little left behind that even a small amount of equity is good enough to call, etc. The reason we are wanting him to fold is that, while he is folding a worse hand, he is giving up whatever equity he does have.
rereading all of this, I realize this is probably just a long-winded way of saying that we would 'prefer' the villain takes whatever course of action that yields us the greatest expectation, but there you have it...
I crafted the hand on purpose so that Hero's expectation is greater when villain folds. Villain's equity is about 27% here and his pot odds after we bet are 22.7%.Quote:
You could always run a quick EV calculation (I'm not at home and so don't have pokerstove installed unfortunately) and figure out whether our expectation when villain calls is greater than when villain folds. I assume it is.
My question really is: can we still call Hero's bet a value bet when he hopes that his opponent folds a worse hand?
hmm yeah sorry it's uber late and I missed the obvious.
my answer to your actual question, then... I think given the potsize etc the bet is really just a whatever 'oops I forgot to 5-bet you pre and with these stacks we're pretty much getting it in anyway' bet. I would assume that he only folds with a tiny probability. It really doesn't make much sense for us to get to the flop when villain's already put in over half his stack pre?
Anyway, it's sort of trivial - not to be offensive or anything. Let's call it a value bet and be glad situations like these do actually come up every now and then.
EDIT: a better way to think of this would be just that we are ahead of villain's range, villain may still call; therefore yes we are betting for value. If he folds, he is giving up his equity, which is also good. Since he folds with a smallish probability, it is only a minor factor in our decision to bet. If you've ever read the book Easy Game by Balugawhale, this is just the '3rd reason for betting'; capitalization of dead money in the pot. Pretty straight forward... think of it as a 'sweetener' to your value bet, if nothing else. We never bet explicitly to fold worse.
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.
Neither of you understand the fundamental theorem of poker and that's why you're confused.
Not everything has to be a perfect little value bet or perfect little bluff inside of these nice little molds that are created for you when you're at 2nl trying to understand why you should buy in for full and can barely wipe your own ass.
he has overpair and and backdoor to straight, if he is a good reader and knows opp is on AK, he wants opp to call cause is in front and win 3/4 times. 5$ bet in 12 pot is ok, but also is 50% of our stack so will prob induce hand strenght to opp, can also make opp fold cause if he call he is all in and hold nothing no so he may not risk his stack on air.
99 bets cause he has on what to bet, the 12$ pot means he's double his stack so he would like to get the pot on flop.
When we put him in, we're saying to him "calling is a mistake", which in this case it isn't, so we're bluffing. That's my take.
To our discharge, it's being hammered constantly in the BC that we never ever ever should wish an opp to fold a worse hand (and yes I do understand that it is important to teach that and keep it simple and that it's true in the vast majority of cases).Quote:
Neither of you understand the fundamental theorem of poker and that's why you're confused.
Not everything has to be a perfect little value bet or perfect little bluff inside of these nice little molds that are created for you when you're at 2nl trying to understand why you should buy in for full and can barely wipe your own ass.
I even asked in IRC yesterday if anyone could think of a situation where it is not the case and some FTR reg said no, unless your life or bankroll depends on opp folding the hand.
Now for the fundamental theorem of poker, I think I get it also: if opp folds, he "makes a mistake" because he has sufficient showdown equity to profitably call with the pot odds offered to him. So we gain from his mistake if he folds. If he calls, he does not make a mistake, so we loose. What we gain or loose when he folds or calls is the difference between our EV when he folds ($12) and our EV when he calls ($10.95), so $1.05
No?
And as far as buying in full, we do, but we also face short stackers a lot, so this kind of stuff doesn't happen so rarely that it is not worth mentioning, right?
...feel like I'm gonna get trout-slapped again...
why the hell does it matter what its called or what we hope he does
Yeah thanks for the condescension spoon, can always count on you for that. Clearly I should go back to the 2 en els and learn poker properly before posting after you with a different opinion. Only idiots have opinions that differ from those of spoonitnow.Quote:
Originally Posted by spoonitnow
I'm pretty much not posting in any threads you're remotely involved in anymore.
you won't get any more money in unless your behind.
Just trying to clarify the purpose of betting here, whatever it's called. It doesn't have to matter to you.Quote:
why the hell does it matter what its called or what we hope he does
Right on 100%. As for another example like the bold, you'll also see people saying you should never value bet when you're behind your opponent's calling range, which is also incorrect.Quote:
Originally Posted by daviddem
If you can't take poker advice for beginners then get out of the poker advice forum for beginners.Quote:
Originally Posted by Penneywize
Hope the bold is a level.Quote:
Originally Posted by Imthenewfish
Edit: Fine, I'll ninja edit my post too. I think this thread has served it's purpose anyway.
So what if there's a third guy with 54o and he's also got $5 left in his stack?
We still bet because our EV for betting and being (correctly) called twice is greater than our EV for trying to check down the hand.Quote:
Originally Posted by spoonitnow
So betting is better even though our showdown equity is only 45.3%.
Let's make this more specific: say the second Villain has 5c4s and also has a $5 stack. We make our $5 bet, and assume Villain 1 acts first while Villain 2 acts second.
From highest EV to lowest EV:
$12.00 - Both fold
$10.93 - AhKh calls, 5c4s folds
$10.09 - AhKh folds, 5c4s calls
$7.23 - Both call
Here the fundamental theorem holds since we benefit by their mistakes no matter what happens. Can you come up with hands for the two Villains here where the fundamental theorem doesn't hold?
Math Shit Below Showing The EV Of Each Possible Outcome
If both call:
Our EV is (0.45293)(12+5+5) + (1-0.45293)(-5) = $7.23.Code:Board: 7d 6c 2h
Dead:
equity win tie pots won pots tied
Hand 0: 45.293% 45.29% 00.00% 409 0.00 { 9h9s }
Hand 1: 23.588% 23.59% 00.00% 213 0.00 { AhKh }
Hand 2: 31.118% 31.12% 00.00% 281 0.00 { 5c4s }
If AhKh calls and 5c4s folds:
Our EV is (0.72424)(12+5) + (1-0.72424)(-5) = $10.93.Code:Board: 7d 6c 2h
Dead:
equity win tie pots won pots tied
Hand 0: 72.424% 72.42% 00.00% 717 0.00 { 9h9s }
Hand 1: 27.576% 27.58% 00.00% 273 0.00 { AhKh }
If AhKh folds and 5c4s calls:
Our EV is (0.68586)(12+5) + (1-0.68586)(-5) = $10.09.Code:Board: 7d 6c 2h
Dead:
equity win tie pots won pots tied
Hand 0: 68.586% 68.59% 00.00% 679 0.00 { 9h9s }
Hand 1: 31.414% 31.41% 00.00% 311 0.00 { 5c4s }
If both fold, our EV is $12 since we just win the pot.
If we're against Ah8h and 9c5c, the EVs are as follows:
Both Call 12.34215
9c5c Calls 12.32214
Ah8h Calls 12.71110
Both Fold 12.00000
99 v Ah8h v 9c5c 0.64230 0.17386 0.18383
99 v 9c5c 0.78737 0.21263
99 v Ah8h 0.80505 0.19495
Something worth noting is that no matter what the first Villain does, the second Villain's best play is to fold. Check the equities to verify this if you need to.
Suppose 9c5c acts first. If he folds, then Ah8h should fold. Our EV if Ah8h folds is $12.00 and our EV if he calls is $12.71, so we benefit from his mistake here. If 9c5c calls, then Ah8h should fold. If Ah8h folds our EV is $12.32, and if Ah8h calls our EV is $12.34. We benefit from his mistake, so the theorem holds here. So far, so good.
Now suppose Ah8h acts first. If he folds, then 9c5c should fold. Our EV if 9c5c folds is $12.00 and our EV if he calls is $12.32. So far so good.
But what if Ah8h calls? Then 9c5c should fold. Our EV if 9c5c folds is $12.71, but our EV if he calls is $12.34. Here we gain when the Villain with 9c5c plays correctly, and lose when he makes a mistake.
I understand that we'll profit more the larger mistakes our opponents make, but i don't see how 'hoping' they do actually affects if they do
It's about knowing what you're trying to accomplish with your actions, not really the hope aspect.Quote:
Originally Posted by Imthenewfish
At first glance this seems to be a violation of the fundamental theorem, but it's not.Quote:
But what if Ah8h calls? Then 9c5c should fold. Our EV if 9c5c folds is $12.71, but our EV if he calls is $12.34. Here we gain when the Villain with 9c5c plays correctly, and lose when he makes a mistake.
Let's not only look at our EV but also the one of Ah8h:
1) if 9c5c calls (he makes a mistake)
- our EV 12.3421
- Ah8h EV -0.30758
- 9c5c EV -0.03632
Note that the total is $12 because that is the pot the players are fighting for to start with.
2) if 9c5c folds (he plays correctly):
- our EV 12.7111
- Ah8h EV -0.7111
And obv. the total is stilll $12.
So what happens when 9c5c folds is that he dumps his negative EV towards the other two players. So both players as a group loose from 9c5c's correct play, and the fundamental theorem of poker has not been invalidated.
The reason that our EV actually increases is that in the process, Ah8h's EV has decreased by more than the amount of total negative EV from 9c5c. This is because another effect of 9c5c folding is to rebalance the showdown equities between us and Ah8h, and our equity benefits much more from his fold than Ah8h's equity does.
Are we supposed to bet because that gives villain the opportunity to make the mistake of folding?
Interesting question, daviddem.
Every time you play a hand differently from the way you would have played it if you could see all your opponents' cards, they gain; and every time you play your hand the same way you would have played it if you could see all their cards, they lose. Conversely, every time opponents play their hands differently from the way they would have if they could see all your cards, you gain; and every time they play their hands the same way they would have played if they could see all your cards, you lose.Quote:
Originally Posted by daviddem
The fundamental theorem of poker is not based on the total EV as a group, but only our EV. While your assessment that the total EV of all the players left in the hand stays the same (which is true because it's a zero-sum game), this doesn't hold the fundamental theorem intact.
In game theory we call this implicit collusion, and is a big part of why multiway games are so difficult to study.
Additionally, the fundamental theorem holds 100% of the time in heads-up situations, but it doesn't hold 100% of the time in multiway situations.
For further reading, see: Morton's theorem - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Well OK maybe we need a reformulation of the theorem to take this kind of multiway case into account:Quote:
The fundamental theorem of poker is not based on the total EV as a group, but only our EV.
Every time you play a hand differently from the way you would have played it if you could see all your opponents' cards, they gain as a group*; every time you play your hand the same way you would have played it if you could see all their cards, they loose as a group**
and
every time one opponent plays his hand differently from the way he would have if he could see all your and other opponents' cards, you and the other opponents gain as a group*; and every time he plays his hand the same way he would have played if he could see all your and other opponents' cards, you and the other opponents loose as a group**.
* it is possible though, that some individuals in the group loose and some gain more than the total value gained by the group
** it is possible though, that some individuals in the group gain and some loose more than the total value lost by the group
Would that work?
Or reformulate it in terms of EV...
It'd be interesting to know whether Sklansky thought about this when he wrote his theorem.
Have you ever read Theory of Poker? He states very clearly that it doesn't apply to multi-way pots 100% of the time.Quote:
It's be interesting to know whether Sklansky thought about that when he wrote his theorem...
Shit I hit the edit button instead of the quote button beside of your post and accidentally edited your post to be what my reply was going to be. Ummm post what you said again lol.
We should at least be aware when we bet here that villain does not make a mistake by calling. He only makes a mistake if he folds.Quote:
Are we supposed to bet because that gives villain the opportunity to make the mistake of folding?
Whether to bet or not depends on which of your actions you think is going to generate the most EV for you (or in other words, which of your actions is going to indiuce the biggest mistake in his play). You could for example calculate your EV if you check, he checks and you bet on a non A or K turn and he calls.
No I picked up the theorem in No Limit Theory and Practice. I also have Theory of Poker somewhere though, I'll try later to find the paragraph you're talking about.Quote:
Have you ever read Theory of Poker? He states very clearly that it doesn't apply to multi-way pots 100% of the time.
In fixed-limit games it's much easier to find spots like this multi-way because the pot is so large relative to the bets being made, and in stud games there are more betting streets.Quote:
Originally Posted by daviddem
This is also related to why relative position is really important in fixed-limit games -- it allows you to raise and make the field face a 2-bet.
OK, let me try to come up with one example of that: we're up against an opp, and in his range he has two hands which each have 26.5% equity against ours and one hand which has 100% equity against ours. He only calls with his strong hand and folds his draws. So we're crushed by his calling range. However betting can be +EV, depending on the amount we bet. Say the pot is $20. We have $5 behind. We bet. He makes a mistake when he folds a draw because he has 26.5% equity with his draw while he is facing 16.7% pot odds. So we gain from his mistake:Quote:
you'll also see people saying you should never value bet when you're behind your opponent's calling range, which is also incorrect
EV of checking down the hand:
0.6666*0.735*$20=$9.8
EV of betting:
0.6666*$20-0.3333*$5=$11.66
Is that what you had in mind?
Note that to maximize our EV, we should bet the smallest amount that will induce him to fold his draws, up to a maximum of $10.6. Beyond this, checking down the hand becomes better.
who cares WHY we bet if betting is a win win situation?
why are you making up these unrealistic situations, narrowing villains range to 3 hands, 1 hand etc, shouldn't you be focusing on fixing your real leaks instead of trying to be a poker philosopher?
show me a guy who folds his draw to a 1/4 psb and if he is, it is so easy to beat him you dont need to calculate the EV outcome or we, just bet, shut down when he calls and get it in w the nuts. (obv. it is never that simple, cos they start playing back)
just seems like a waste of time.
if your draw has less then 6 outs you should fold...
Knowing why you're taking the action you are is one of the most important things you can do to get better at poker. Just because betting is a win-win situation does not mean that checking is worse.Quote:
Originally Posted by middleburn
It's not unrealistic to narrow a Villain's range to just a few hands. Additionally, the use of specific examples makes it easier to illustrate how poker works, and understanding how poker works in these specific examples makes it easier to understand how poker works when you're dealing with more complicated situations.
There are people who fold their draws to small bets, just like there are people who call with their draws facing huge bets. Also, you aren't able to decide how to play against a person who folds their draws to small bets without evaluating the EV, so it's ridiculous to say that thinking about the EV is unnecessary to know how to play against any opponent.
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)Quote:
Originally Posted by daviddem
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by kfaess
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.Quote:
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.
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.
I'll try one more time. The type of situation where we typically think we're betting for value but would like our opponents to fold certain hands that are behind happen more often than most people think.
Another common example is when we 5-bet pre-flop with a low pocket pair, wanting people to fold overs.
this is 100% wrong.Quote:
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.
slight thread derail, sorry, daviddem
i just looked in the the high stakes forum and some of the very best high stakes players in the world post here. That is so cool! FTR is so superior to the 'ur retarded' forum.
@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.Quote:
Originally Posted by kfaess
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 about As2s on a Js7s6h flop? Betting could fold out 22-55 and 88-TT, and still get called by alot of worse draws. Not sure if this is a good example though since we're only slightly behind those pairs.
It would have been much smarter to start the thread with such an example, it would have avoided a lot of the "this is unrealistic bullshit" responses.Quote:
Originally Posted by spoonitnow
So here is one, in a heads up context, with 100bb stacks:
Villain (SB & BTN): A:h:K:spade: (equity 43.65%)
Hero (BB): Q:heart:Q:spade: (equity 56.35%)
Villain raises to 3bb, Hero raises to 10bb, Villain raises to 30bb, Hero raises to 100bb (all in)
Villain's pot odds: 35%
Hero's EV if villain (correctly) calls: 0.5635*200bb=112.7bb
Hero's EV if villain folds (he makes a mistake): 130bb
So even though Hero bets with the best hand, a fold from villain is a better outcome for him.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by spoonitnow
Yeah but that's not as fun.Quote:
Originally Posted by daviddem
That could work. Can you come up with one that's heads-up?Quote:
Originally Posted by kfaess
Say we have ThTd on a As6c7c board, when we bet we can fold JJ-KK and get called by flush/straight draws.Quote:
That could work. Can you come up with one that's heads-up?
I am sure you have a funnier one though...
on that flop, depend on stacks you should measure your bet cause you might get called on pairs.... and btw you may also get called there any Ax ,67 combos and 6 set, 7 set. they all are in someones range on a LP.
Good job. In general spots where you can get a better pair to fold but get draws to call are great examples of this.Quote:
Originally Posted by daviddem
So have we figured out a spot where we should value bet heads-up on the river when we're behind our opponent's calling range yet?
I'd say a spot OOP where if we check he is very likely to bet big and we would have to fold. In this case the EV of checking would be 0 but the EV of betting would be >0 (if he is much less likely to raise a bet than betting when checked to). In other words, our hand has showdown value, and we bet to preserve that value, which we would otherwise loose.Quote:
Originally Posted by spoonitnow
Call that a blocking bet?
IP I don't think it's ever true.
In your example the EV of checking is still greater than zero if Villain isn't betting 100% of the time, but you are right that this describes a blocking bet. There are IP examples, but they're harder to come up with. There are also non-blocking bet examples.Quote:
Originally Posted by daviddem
Here are two situations to think about:
1. What happens if we have a medium strength hand against a polarized range and bet OOP?
2. What happens if we have a medium strength hand against a non-polarized range and bet OOP?
1. Assuming he doesn't bluff his air, he only calls/raises with better or folds worse. No mistakes.
2. He can make mistakes and fold better or call with worse.
I am not sure I see how it ties in with your original question though. You already said that we are behind his calling range. So the only way we can gain by betting is by folding some of the better hands in his range when we bet, but then we can't really call that a value bet, it's more of a bluff isn't it?
I've decided to append something to my two above questions so that you guys understand what I'm asking.
Here are two situations to think about:
1. What happens if we have a medium strength hand against a polarized range and bet OOP compared to checking?
2. What happens if we have a medium strength hand against a non-polarized range and bet OOP compared to checking?