Bet sizes, bluffs and making my game profitable
When I started playing cash NL online I was hoping for a better experience than limit by cutting off draws, etc. I would bet aggressively on top pair or better, slow play when more than a single card ahead, start with mostly pot sized bets and play hands selectively. But my aggression would get destroyed by better hands with position on me and I was quickly ending up in big pots on the second best hand or getting no action on good hands. I was at around break even poker.
It got me rethinking my game.
Starting with betting sizes.
http://www.cardplayer.com/caro/caro12.wax
Defaulting to a pot sized bet is bad. To bluff on a pot sized bet you need to be successful more than 50% of the time. Even more so on higher than pot sized bets. To follow that bluff with another bluff (in case they were making a courtesy call, particularly in a multi-pot, or called on a draw that missed), costs 3x the initial pot size and puts you in for a substantial amount of $$$. It just doesn't seem profitable enough, particularly against fish. It also adds volitility to your bankroll (something NL is supposed to be better at than limit.)
If you semi-bluff with a pot sized bet and get raised back for the minimum you need at least a 33% chance to make your hand for that call to be profitable. Horrible pot odds, even implied.
Same deal with betting top pair, two pot sized bets wonderfully sets up any number of better hands in a later position to destroy you. Anything less gets spooked away far too often.
Mixing up bets too much gives away too much information real or implied. Particularly since right now I'm mostly dealing with weak players at the $25 tables anyway. Although, probably something I'll look into as I refine my strategy.
So I've switched to half pot bets by default (2x BB minimum) and I bet a lot more often. Now I can bet on pretty much anything. Draws, top pair, maybe second pair. I can bet if I think the other players in the pot all missed (more on this later.) On a pure bluff, I only need this bet to fold out an eventual better hand over 33% of the time for the bet to be profitable. If I get caught on a bluff all the better, I hope they notice. It lowers the calling standards for that player the next few hands. Often they will call my first bet and fold to a second bluff (a half pot bluff on the flop and the river costs only 1 and a half times as much relative to a single pot sized bluff for with a single caller and that second bet and has a higher potential payoff.) If a half pot bet gets a minimum raise ("hey, you're bluffing"), pot odds on calling with a flush or strait draw aren't even that bad considering my call reduces the profit of a simple raise just to keep me honest. I also can throttle back my aggression waiting for a good hand + flop to represent the same betting pattern, then kick back up the throttle.
The key is most of the time a hold 'em hand has pretty much nothing after the flop (unless you have a strong pocket pair, but they often advertise pre-flop.) When you have pretty much nothing, calling any non-trivial bet isn't easy. Even call-stations consider folding. Make 'em think about folding before their hand develops. After their hand develops, they’re seeing me make a similar betting patter to my good hands, making even weak and draw hands consider folding. If another player sticks around on a draw, that works too. Against a half pot bet a single caller needs 25%+ odds on their draw to turn a profit, two callers need 20%+ still giving my made hand an edge against most represented draws if I check + fold if the possible flush/strait hits. I also will sometimes get more aggressive against a likely draw after the turn, since at that point they’ve called one bet and I can set up really horrible odds on their river draw without a bet that leaves me too vulnerable to a made better hand.
The river, however is a different story.
On a strong hand, I'm in sell mode. How much can I get them to pay for showdown without making them fold? I'm not after their stack (unless they showed strength), I'm after as much money as I can squeeze out of the hand. This sometimes means less than half-pot. Getting that last bet/raise called does lots of good things. I think this gets me money more often than pricing myself out of the market and it shows a strong hand on a weak river bet setting up bluffs with weaker bets. However, I still have a lot to learn here and any feedback is appreciated.
On any hand I think I got a remote chance of taking the hand, I bet the river. Too often after a check-fest I would check to take a pot with 2nd pair or Ace high. Also, it's another case where players likely don't like their hand setting up a bluff. Not a big bet, but at least $1. If someone slow played me, that's fine too. Since I'm not buying out the pot with obscene bets slow play doesn't hurt as much as its potential to backfire particularly when done poorly.
Another exception is fragile strong hands against draws, etc with a nice sized pot. Then, I’ll go with the big bet to shut it down completely not expecting a caller, but certainly welcoming one if I get it. Also betting against a hand that has shown strength is different. In that case I will go after their stack if I think they have 2nd best hand.
Anyway, now I'm winning more pots with weak/missed hands, losing less on second best hands and getting paid more money more often on strong hands.
Any feedback on further tuning my betting? Anyone disagree?
Bet sizes, bluffs and making my game profitable
When I started playing cash NL online I was hoping for a better experience than limit by cutting off draws, etc. I would bet aggressively on top pair or better, slow play when more than a single card ahead, start with mostly pot sized bets and play hands selectively. But my aggression would get destroyed by better hands with position on me and I was quickly ending up in big pots on the second best hand or getting no action on good hands. I was at around break even poker.
It got me rethinking my game.
Starting with betting sizes.
http://www.cardplayer.com/caro/caro12.wax
Defaulting to a pot sized bet is bad. To bluff on a pot sized bet you need to be successful more than 50% of the time. Even more so on higher than pot sized bets. To follow that bluff with another bluff (in case they were making a courtesy call, particularly in a multi-pot, or called on a draw that missed), costs 3x the initial pot size and puts you in for a substantial amount of $$$. It just doesn't seem profitable enough, particularly against fish. It also adds volitility to your bankroll (something NL is supposed to be better at than limit.)
If you semi-bluff with a pot sized bet and get raised back for the minimum you need at least a 33% chance to make your hand for that call to be profitable. Horrible pot odds, even implied.
Same deal with betting top pair, two pot sized bets wonderfully sets up any number of better hands in a later position to destroy you. Anything less gets spooked away far too often.
Mixing up bets too much gives away too much information real or implied. Particularly since right now I'm mostly dealing with weak players at the $25 tables anyway. Although, probably something I'll look into as I refine my strategy.
So I've switched to half pot bets by default (2x BB minimum) and I bet a lot more often. Now I can bet on pretty much anything. Draws, top pair, maybe second pair. I can bet if I think the other players in the pot all missed (more on this later.) On a pure bluff, I only need this bet to fold out an eventual better hand over 33% of the time for the bet to be profitable. If I get caught on a bluff all the better, I hope they notice. It lowers the calling standards for that player the next few hands. Often they will call my first bet and fold to a second bluff (a half pot bluff on the flop and the river costs only 1 and a half times as much relative to a single pot sized bluff for with a single caller and that second bet and has a higher potential payoff.) If a half pot bet gets a minimum raise ("hey, you're bluffing"), pot odds on calling with a flush or strait draw aren't even that bad considering my call reduces the profit of a simple raise just to keep me honest. I also can throttle back my aggression waiting for a good hand + flop to represent the same betting pattern, then kick back up the throttle.
The key is most of the time a hold 'em hand has pretty much nothing after the flop (unless you have a strong pocket pair, but they often advertise pre-flop.) When you have pretty much nothing, calling any non-trivial bet isn't easy. Even call-stations consider folding. Make 'em think about folding before their hand develops. After their hand develops, they’re seeing me make a similar betting patter to my good hands, making even weak and draw hands consider folding. If another player sticks around on a draw, that works too. Against a half pot bet a single caller needs 25%+ odds on their draw to turn a profit, two callers need 20%+ still giving my made hand an edge against most represented draws if I check + fold if the possible flush/strait hits. I also will sometimes get more aggressive against a likely draw after the turn, since at that point they’ve called one bet and I can set up really horrible odds on their river draw without a bet that leaves me too vulnerable to a made better hand.
The river, however is a different story.
On a strong hand, I'm in sell mode. How much can I get them to pay for showdown without making them fold? I'm not after their stack (unless they showed strength), I'm after as much money as I can squeeze out of the hand. This sometimes means less than half-pot. Getting that last bet/raise called does lots of good things. I think this gets me money more often than pricing myself out of the market and it shows a strong hand on a weak river bet setting up bluffs with weaker bets. However, I still have a lot to learn here and any feedback is appreciated.
On any hand I think I got a remote chance of taking the hand, I bet the river. Too often after a check-fest I would check to take a pot with 2nd pair or Ace high. Also, it's another case where players likely don't like their hand setting up a bluff. Not a big bet, but at least $1. If someone slow played me, that's fine too. Since I'm not buying out the pot with obscene bets slow play doesn't hurt as much as its potential to backfire particularly when done poorly.
Another exception is fragile strong hands against draws, etc with a nice sized pot. Then, I’ll go with the big bet to shut it down completely not expecting a caller, but certainly welcoming one if I get it. Also betting against a hand that has shown strength is different. In that case I will go after their stack if I think they have 2nd best hand.
Anyway, now I'm winning more pots with weak/missed hands, losing less on second best hands and getting paid more money more often on strong hands.
Any feedback on further tuning my betting? Anyone disagree?
Bet sizes, bluffs and making my game profitable
When I started playing cash NL online I was hoping for a better experience than limit by cutting off draws, etc. I would bet aggressively on top pair or better, slow play when more than a single card ahead, start with mostly pot sized bets and play hands selectively. But my aggression would get destroyed by better hands with position on me and I was quickly ending up in big pots on the second best hand or getting no action on good hands. I was at around break even poker.
It got me rethinking my game.
Starting with betting sizes.
http://www.cardplayer.com/caro/caro12.wax
Defaulting to a pot sized bet is bad. To bluff on a pot sized bet you need to be successful more than 50% of the time. Even more so on higher than pot sized bets. To follow that bluff with another bluff (in case they were making a courtesy call, particularly in a multi-pot, or called on a draw that missed), costs 3x the initial pot size and puts you in for a substantial amount of $$$. It just doesn't seem profitable enough, particularly against fish. It also adds volitility to your bankroll (something NL is supposed to be better at than limit.)
If you semi-bluff with a pot sized bet and get raised back for the minimum you need at least a 33% chance to make your hand for that call to be profitable. Horrible pot odds, even implied.
Same deal with betting top pair, two pot sized bets wonderfully sets up any number of better hands in a later position to destroy you. Anything less gets spooked away far too often.
Mixing up bets too much gives away too much information real or implied. Particularly since right now I'm mostly dealing with weak players at the $25 tables anyway. Although, probably something I'll look into as I refine my strategy.
So I've switched to half pot bets by default (2x BB minimum) and I bet a lot more often. Now I can bet on pretty much anything. Draws, top pair, maybe second pair. I can bet if I think the other players in the pot all missed (more on this later.) On a pure bluff, I only need this bet to fold out an eventual better hand over 33% of the time for the bet to be profitable. If I get caught on a bluff all the better, I hope they notice. It lowers the calling standards for that player the next few hands. Often they will call my first bet and fold to a second bluff (a half pot bluff on the flop and the river costs only 1 and a half times as much relative to a single pot sized bluff for with a single caller and that second bet and has a higher potential payoff.) If a half pot bet gets a minimum raise ("hey, you're bluffing"), pot odds on calling with a flush or strait draw aren't even that bad considering my call reduces the profit of a simple raise just to keep me honest. I also can throttle back my aggression waiting for a good hand + flop to represent the same betting pattern, then kick back up the throttle.
The key is most of the time a hold 'em hand has pretty much nothing after the flop (unless you have a strong pocket pair, but they often advertise pre-flop.) When you have pretty much nothing, calling any non-trivial bet isn't easy. Even call-stations consider folding. Make 'em think about folding before their hand develops. After their hand develops, they’re seeing me make a similar betting patter to my good hands, making even weak and draw hands consider folding. If another player sticks around on a draw, that works too. Against a half pot bet a single caller needs 25%+ odds on their draw to turn a profit, two callers need 20%+ still giving my made hand an edge against most represented draws if I check + fold if the possible flush/strait hits. I also will sometimes get more aggressive against a likely draw after the turn, since at that point they’ve called one bet and I can set up really horrible odds on their river draw without a bet that leaves me too vulnerable to a made better hand.
The river, however is a different story.
On a strong hand, I'm in sell mode. How much can I get them to pay for showdown without making them fold? I'm not after their stack (unless they showed strength), I'm after as much money as I can squeeze out of the hand. This sometimes means less than half-pot. Getting that last bet/raise called does lots of good things. I think this gets me money more often than pricing myself out of the market and it shows a strong hand on a weak river bet setting up bluffs with weaker bets. However, I still have a lot to learn here and any feedback is appreciated.
On any hand I think I got a remote chance of taking the hand, I bet the river. Too often after a check-fest I would check to take a pot with 2nd pair or Ace high. Also, it's another case where players likely don't like their hand setting up a bluff. Not a big bet, but at least $1. If someone slow played me, that's fine too. Since I'm not buying out the pot with obscene bets slow play doesn't hurt as much as its potential to backfire particularly when done poorly.
Another exception is fragile strong hands against draws, etc with a nice sized pot. Then, I’ll go with the big bet to shut it down completely not expecting a caller, but certainly welcoming one if I get it. Also betting against a hand that has shown strength is different. In that case I will go after their stack if I think they have 2nd best hand.
Anyway, now I'm winning more pots with weak/missed hands, losing less on second best hands and getting paid more money more often on strong hands.
Any feedback on further tuning my betting? Anyone disagree?
Bet sizes, bluffs and making my game profitable
When I started playing cash NL online I was hoping for a better experience than limit by cutting off draws, etc. I would bet aggressively on top pair or better, slow play when more than a single card ahead, start with mostly pot sized bets and play hands selectively. But my aggression would get destroyed by better hands with position on me and I was quickly ending up in big pots on the second best hand or getting no action on good hands. I was at around break even poker.
It got me rethinking my game.
Starting with betting sizes.
http://www.cardplayer.com/caro/caro12.wax
Defaulting to a pot sized bet is bad. To bluff on a pot sized bet you need to be successful more than 50% of the time. Even more so on higher than pot sized bets. To follow that bluff with another bluff (in case they were making a courtesy call, particularly in a multi-pot, or called on a draw that missed), costs 3x the initial pot size and puts you in for a substantial amount of $$$. It just doesn't seem profitable enough, particularly against fish. It also adds volitility to your bankroll (something NL is supposed to be better at than limit.)
If you semi-bluff with a pot sized bet and get raised back for the minimum you need at least a 33% chance to make your hand for that call to be profitable. Horrible pot odds, even implied.
Same deal with betting top pair, two pot sized bets wonderfully sets up any number of better hands in a later position to destroy you. Anything less gets spooked away far too often.
Mixing up bets too much gives away too much information real or implied. Particularly since right now I'm mostly dealing with weak players at the $25 tables anyway. Although, probably something I'll look into as I refine my strategy.
So I've switched to half pot bets by default (2x BB minimum) and I bet a lot more often. Now I can bet on pretty much anything. Draws, top pair, maybe second pair. I can bet if I think the other players in the pot all missed (more on this later.) On a pure bluff, I only need this bet to fold out an eventual better hand over 33% of the time for the bet to be profitable. If I get caught on a bluff all the better, I hope they notice. It lowers the calling standards for that player the next few hands. Often they will call my first bet and fold to a second bluff (a half pot bluff on the flop and the river costs only 1 and a half times as much relative to a single pot sized bluff for with a single caller and that second bet and has a higher potential payoff.) If a half pot bet gets a minimum raise ("hey, you're bluffing"), pot odds on calling with a flush or strait draw aren't even that bad considering my call reduces the profit of a simple raise just to keep me honest. I also can throttle back my aggression waiting for a good hand + flop to represent the same betting pattern, then kick back up the throttle.
The key is most of the time a hold 'em hand has pretty much nothing after the flop (unless you have a strong pocket pair, but they often advertise pre-flop.) When you have pretty much nothing, calling any non-trivial bet isn't easy. Even call-stations consider folding. Make 'em think about folding before their hand develops. After their hand develops, they’re seeing me make a similar betting patter to my good hands, making even weak and draw hands consider folding. If another player sticks around on a draw, that works too. Against a half pot bet a single caller needs 25%+ odds on their draw to turn a profit, two callers need 20%+ still giving my made hand an edge against most represented draws if I check + fold if the possible flush/strait hits. I also will sometimes get more aggressive against a likely draw after the turn, since at that point they’ve called one bet and I can set up really horrible odds on their river draw without a bet that leaves me too vulnerable to a made better hand.
The river, however is a different story.
On a strong hand, I'm in sell mode. How much can I get them to pay for showdown without making them fold? I'm not after their stack (unless they showed strength), I'm after as much money as I can squeeze out of the hand. This sometimes means less than half-pot. Getting that last bet/raise called does lots of good things. I think this gets me money more often than pricing myself out of the market and it shows a strong hand on a weak river bet setting up bluffs with weaker bets. However, I still have a lot to learn here and any feedback is appreciated.
On any hand I think I got a remote chance of taking the hand, I bet the river. Too often after a check-fest I would check to take a pot with 2nd pair or Ace high. Also, it's another case where players likely don't like their hand setting up a bluff. Not a big bet, but at least $1. If someone slow played me, that's fine too. Since I'm not buying out the pot with obscene bets slow play doesn't hurt as much as its potential to backfire particularly when done poorly.
Another exception is fragile strong hands against draws, etc with a nice sized pot. Then, I’ll go with the big bet to shut it down completely not expecting a caller, but certainly welcoming one if I get it. Also betting against a hand that has shown strength is different. In that case I will go after their stack if I think they have 2nd best hand.
Anyway, now I'm winning more pots with weak/missed hands, losing less on second best hands and getting paid more money more often on strong hands.
Any feedback on further tuning my betting? Anyone disagree?
Bet sizes, bluffs and making my game profitable
When I started playing cash NL online I was hoping for a better experience than limit by cutting off draws, etc. I would bet aggressively on top pair or better, slow play when more than a single card ahead, start with mostly pot sized bets and play hands selectively. But my aggression would get destroyed by better hands with position on me and I was quickly ending up in big pots on the second best hand or getting no action on good hands. I was at around break even poker.
It got me rethinking my game.
Starting with betting sizes.
http://www.cardplayer.com/caro/caro12.wax
Defaulting to a pot sized bet is bad. To bluff on a pot sized bet you need to be successful more than 50% of the time. Even more so on higher than pot sized bets. To follow that bluff with another bluff (in case they were making a courtesy call, particularly in a multi-pot, or called on a draw that missed), costs 3x the initial pot size and puts you in for a substantial amount of $$$. It just doesn't seem profitable enough, particularly against fish. It also adds volitility to your bankroll (something NL is supposed to be better at than limit.)
If you semi-bluff with a pot sized bet and get raised back for the minimum you need at least a 33% chance to make your hand for that call to be profitable. Horrible pot odds, even implied.
Same deal with betting top pair, two pot sized bets wonderfully sets up any number of better hands in a later position to destroy you. Anything less gets spooked away far too often.
Mixing up bets too much gives away too much information real or implied. Particularly since right now I'm mostly dealing with weak players at the $25 tables anyway. Although, probably something I'll look into as I refine my strategy.
So I've switched to half pot bets by default (2x BB minimum) and I bet a lot more often. Now I can bet on pretty much anything. Draws, top pair, maybe second pair. I can bet if I think the other players in the pot all missed (more on this later.) On a pure bluff, I only need this bet to fold out an eventual better hand over 33% of the time for the bet to be profitable. If I get caught on a bluff all the better, I hope they notice. It lowers the calling standards for that player the next few hands. Often they will call my first bet and fold to a second bluff (a half pot bluff on the flop and the river costs only 1 and a half times as much relative to a single pot sized bluff for with a single caller and that second bet and has a higher potential payoff.) If a half pot bet gets a minimum raise ("hey, you're bluffing"), pot odds on calling with a flush or strait draw aren't even that bad considering my call reduces the profit of a simple raise just to keep me honest. I also can throttle back my aggression waiting for a good hand + flop to represent the same betting pattern, then kick back up the throttle.
The key is most of the time a hold 'em hand has pretty much nothing after the flop (unless you have a strong pocket pair, but they often advertise pre-flop.) When you have pretty much nothing, calling any non-trivial bet isn't easy. Even call-stations consider folding. Make 'em think about folding before their hand develops. After their hand develops, they’re seeing me make a similar betting patter to my good hands, making even weak and draw hands consider folding. If another player sticks around on a draw, that works too. Against a half pot bet a single caller needs 25%+ odds on their draw to turn a profit, two callers need 20%+ still giving my made hand an edge against most represented draws if I check + fold if the possible flush/strait hits. I also will sometimes get more aggressive against a likely draw after the turn, since at that point they’ve called one bet and I can set up really horrible odds on their river draw without a bet that leaves me too vulnerable to a made better hand.
The river, however is a different story.
On a strong hand, I'm in sell mode. How much can I get them to pay for showdown without making them fold? I'm not after their stack (unless they showed strength), I'm after as much money as I can squeeze out of the hand. This sometimes means less than half-pot. Getting that last bet/raise called does lots of good things. I think this gets me money more often than pricing myself out of the market and it shows a strong hand on a weak river bet setting up bluffs with weaker bets. However, I still have a lot to learn here and any feedback is appreciated.
On any hand I think I got a remote chance of taking the hand, I bet the river. Too often after a check-fest I would check to take a pot with 2nd pair or Ace high. Also, it's another case where players likely don't like their hand setting up a bluff. Not a big bet, but at least $1. If someone slow played me, that's fine too. Since I'm not buying out the pot with obscene bets slow play doesn't hurt as much as its potential to backfire particularly when done poorly.
Another exception is fragile strong hands against draws, etc with a nice sized pot. Then, I’ll go with the big bet to shut it down completely not expecting a caller, but certainly welcoming one if I get it. Also betting against a hand that has shown strength is different. In that case I will go after their stack if I think they have 2nd best hand.
Anyway, now I'm winning more pots with weak/missed hands, losing less on second best hands and getting paid more money more often on strong hands.
Any feedback on further tuning my betting? Anyone disagree?
Bet sizes, bluffs and making my game profitable
When I started playing cash NL online I was hoping for a better experience than limit by cutting off draws, etc. I would bet aggressively on top pair or better, slow play when more than a single card ahead, start with mostly pot sized bets and play hands selectively. But my aggression would get destroyed by better hands with position on me and I was quickly ending up in big pots on the second best hand or getting no action on good hands. I was at around break even poker.
It got me rethinking my game.
Starting with betting sizes.
http://www.cardplayer.com/caro/caro12.wax
Defaulting to a pot sized bet is bad. To bluff on a pot sized bet you need to be successful more than 50% of the time. Even more so on higher than pot sized bets. To follow that bluff with another bluff (in case they were making a courtesy call, particularly in a multi-pot, or called on a draw that missed), costs 3x the initial pot size and puts you in for a substantial amount of $$$. It just doesn't seem profitable enough, particularly against fish. It also adds volitility to your bankroll (something NL is supposed to be better at than limit.)
If you semi-bluff with a pot sized bet and get raised back for the minimum you need at least a 33% chance to make your hand for that call to be profitable. Horrible pot odds, even implied.
Same deal with betting top pair, two pot sized bets wonderfully sets up any number of better hands in a later position to destroy you. Anything less gets spooked away far too often.
Mixing up bets too much gives away too much information real or implied. Particularly since right now I'm mostly dealing with weak players at the $25 tables anyway. Although, probably something I'll look into as I refine my strategy.
So I've switched to half pot bets by default (2x BB minimum) and I bet a lot more often. Now I can bet on pretty much anything. Draws, top pair, maybe second pair. I can bet if I think the other players in the pot all missed (more on this later.) On a pure bluff, I only need this bet to fold out an eventual better hand over 33% of the time for the bet to be profitable. If I get caught on a bluff all the better, I hope they notice. It lowers the calling standards for that player the next few hands. Often they will call my first bet and fold to a second bluff (a half pot bluff on the flop and the river costs only 1 and a half times as much relative to a single pot sized bluff for with a single caller and that second bet and has a higher potential payoff.) If a half pot bet gets a minimum raise ("hey, you're bluffing"), pot odds on calling with a flush or strait draw aren't even that bad considering my call reduces the profit of a simple raise just to keep me honest. I also can throttle back my aggression waiting for a good hand + flop to represent the same betting pattern, then kick back up the throttle.
The key is most of the time a hold 'em hand has pretty much nothing after the flop (unless you have a strong pocket pair, but they often advertise pre-flop.) When you have pretty much nothing, calling any non-trivial bet isn't easy. Even call-stations consider folding. Make 'em think about folding before their hand develops. After their hand develops, they’re seeing me make a similar betting patter to my good hands, making even weak and draw hands consider folding. If another player sticks around on a draw, that works too. Against a half pot bet a single caller needs 25%+ odds on their draw to turn a profit, two callers need 20%+ still giving my made hand an edge against most represented draws if I check + fold if the possible flush/strait hits. I also will sometimes get more aggressive against a likely draw after the turn, since at that point they’ve called one bet and I can set up really horrible odds on their river draw without a bet that leaves me too vulnerable to a made better hand.
The river, however is a different story.
On a strong hand, I'm in sell mode. How much can I get them to pay for showdown without making them fold? I'm not after their stack (unless they showed strength), I'm after as much money as I can squeeze out of the hand. This sometimes means less than half-pot. Getting that last bet/raise called does lots of good things. I think this gets me money more often than pricing myself out of the market and it shows a strong hand on a weak river bet setting up bluffs with weaker bets. However, I still have a lot to learn here and any feedback is appreciated.
On any hand I think I got a remote chance of taking the hand, I bet the river. Too often after a check-fest I would check to take a pot with 2nd pair or Ace high. Also, it's another case where players likely don't like their hand setting up a bluff. Not a big bet, but at least $1. If someone slow played me, that's fine too. Since I'm not buying out the pot with obscene bets slow play doesn't hurt as much as its potential to backfire particularly when done poorly.
Another exception is fragile strong hands against draws, etc with a nice sized pot. Then, I’ll go with the big bet to shut it down completely not expecting a caller, but certainly welcoming one if I get it. Also betting against a hand that has shown strength is different. In that case I will go after their stack if I think they have 2nd best hand.
Anyway, now I'm winning more pots with weak/missed hands, losing less on second best hands and getting paid more money more often on strong hands.
Any feedback on further tuning my betting? Anyone disagree?
Re: Bet sizes, bluffs and making my game profitable
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fnord
If you semi-bluff with a pot sized bet and get raised back for the minimum you need at least a 33% chance to make your hand for that call to be profitable. Horrible pot odds, even implied.
I breifly skimmed over this post because I'm about to eat, but I'll come back to it later. This ^^^^ however is very incorrect.
If you bet the pot size, then someone else needs a 33% chance to win the hand to be break even. This of course does not factor in other betting rounds (turn is usually most applicable) or implied odds.
However, if you bet the pot, and get raised the minimum, this is not true.
Pot size: 10
Hero bets 10 (pot size 20)
Villain min-raises to 20 (pot size 40)
Hero must call 10 into a 40 pot. 4:1 on the money, not 2:1. You now must win this hand 1 in 5 times. (This is a good lesson to you habitual min-raisers out there, you know who you are.)
Also.. I agree with a lot of the points made in this post. There are, perhaps, a few things I disagree with but I'll get back to those later after rereading the post more carefully.
Re: Bet sizes, bluffs and making my game profitable
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lukie
If you bet the pot size, then someone else needs a 33% chance to win the hand to be break even. This of course does not factor in other betting rounds (turn is usually most applicable) or implied odds.
However, if you bet the pot, and get raised the minimum, this is not true.
Pot size: 10
Hero bets 10 (pot size 20)
Villain min-raises to 20 (pot size 40)
Hero must call 10 into a 40 pot. 4:1 on the money, not 2:1. You now must win this hand 1 in 5 times. (This is a good lesson to you habitual min-raisers out there, you know who you are.)
Great points. I do want to hear more.
BTW, I love making blocking bets into min-raisers because they will just hit raise against any non-trival bet, allowing you to price your own draw with some fold equity to boot.
