Bet sizes, bluffs and making my game profitable

[Fnord]

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?

[Fnord]

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?

[Fnord]

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?

[Fnord]

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?

[Fnord]

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?

[Fnord]

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?

[LeFou]

You make a lot of excellent points here. I just need a bit more time to think them over

[Pingviini]

That link doesnt work. Here is a recent article from an excellent player.

http://www.pocketfives.com/DC13CB01-...C8205049B.aspx

EDIT: link added

[Surf_Thug]

Extracting Value on the river is such a tricky thing you could dedicated pages and pages to it alone.

After reading this post I feel like i'm loosing some value on the river. I have some tricks in my book I use to extract extra value, but I'm sure theres some I don't know, and I'm sure I'm missing some value I should be getting.

[EricE]

I have been following the betting strategy listed above fairly closely for the last week or so of play. I guess I came upon it independently but it is a fairly standard line, I think. Most importantly is that after 6 months of play I can now usually read weakness v.s. strength and as such, capitalize on weakness. I pick up a lot of pots I shouldn’t by fairly often betting missed flops…when I sense weakness I pot the turn and get folds. The fact that I am betting so often also means people are willing to bet back at you with little…this interferes with stealing pots but helps getting paid when you have a hand. I am not poker wiz or anything but at least I have been profitable with this strat whereas I was losing money before. (of course, it could all just be + variance. Hehe)

River bets I usually quarter pot to half pot…to price them in with a worse hand.

[r8ed]

I think you should vary between 1/2, 3/4 and full pot and depending on the board. Do you really want to put out a 1/2 pot bet with a draw flop and 2+ people left to act after you when you hit trips or two pair or even TPTK? You will be giving odds too often. I'm usually pumping in 3/4 to full pot. I will do less about 20% of the time to mix it up.

I think the 1/2 pot may work better at higher levels, where people understand odds better and know to fold. At 25NL, you have to drastically reduce their odds.

How much are you raising preflop? I'm raising to $1.50 each time. If they put in $1.50 and then I bet the pot, it's costing them alot if they miss and still think I'm buying it to call or bluff-raise. I'm getting 1 or 2 callers so the pot is decent. I see your points about if I miss and bet full pot only to get called. I've had that happen, then bet the turn, then check the river only to have my AK miss every street and lose to A3 that hit a 3 on the river.

I'm always looking for ways to play better and discussions like this can really improve everyone's thought process.

[Lukie]

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.

[Laeelin]

Just this week I started betting less that the pot a LOT more often..

I would have more money if you had wrote this 6 months ago

Great post

[thirteen]

Just this week I started betting less that the pot a LOT more often..

I would have more money if you had wrote this 6 months ago

Great post

The posted date showing at the top on fnords original post was over a year ago... Wed, 21 Jan 2004. I guess this post was dug up by someone.

[Laeelin]

Well, in that case, i wish that LeFou had pulled this up sooner...

The original was posted had even played my first game of poker

PS: I was about to comment on how strange it was to see a thread with: "making my game profitable" and "25NL" in it... that was posted by Fnord

[swiggidy]

I've been playing $10NL (which I'm sure is worse play than $25NL). I'm still in the collecting bonus money stage of my career.

Having read the majority of the site I was making pot sized bets with top pair, etc. At this money level you either buy the pot or get called by someone with a better hand. Like the original author said, making the second pot bet is expensive. I was basically breaking even (which was OK because I'm learning and as long as I don't loose money I get the bonus and come out ahead).

I switched to the 1/2 pot bet, with the continuation 1/2 bet on the turn. Very often people call the first, and fold to the second. I don't use this for bluffing, unless I raised pre-flop and 2-4 people are in. Often I'll get called to the river by middle pair so I find you usually need top pair in case of a showdown. Yes, it can't always be 1/2 pot. If there is an obvious straight or flush draw I ramp it up to full pot bet to take it down right there.

I would vouch for this style for Micro NL games. I've won about 20 BB per hour per table since switching.

[LeFou]

Just this week I started betting less that the pot a LOT more often..

I would have more money if you had wrote this 6 months ago

Great post

That made me laugh my ass off.

Seriously. I have no ass left.

[Fnord]

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.

[jmontis]

in an interview Gus Hansen said it's best to avoid overbets in cash games, reasons why:

1. causes nasty variance (only called by better hands, lose the most when you get sucked out on)
2. by valuebetting/ betting sensibly, you entice calls.
3. the small bets may induce an all-in from a weaker hand when you have a set or some crap.

[Bmxicle]

yep....i always smile a little when i see someone who bets the pot every time. This is why PL games can be particularly soft at times cause so many people feel they have to bet the pot.

[LeFou]

Okay I like this stuff and am going to do some small flop bets and see how it goes.

One question: If I'm trying to hurt drawing odds a half-pot bet is good enough HU but what about into 2 or 3? I'm starting to think that if you have 2+ opps you're compelled to offer tolerable odds at least until the turn.

I mean, if you bet the pot and get a call, the third guy has flush/OE pot odds. This is r8ed's point. I'm working on an answer and will start my own thread ...

[r8ed]

I'm starting to see the light here. I mixed it up by betting less than the pot more often last night. The results weren't dramatic but I see how it is effective without committing too much. I'm usually betting the pot only on draw heavy flops. The other flops where I miss or have top pair or better, I'm betting 1/2 to 3/4. I'll try this for the next week and see what happens. There is no real controlled test due to different cards and players but I should know how it's going.

The part that confused me at first was the AG in TAG. I was equating AG to betting hard on the flop. Maybe making an aggressive, yet sensible bet is more appropriate. By betting at all, you are playing aggressively.

The full pot has been working, but this may be a better approach. Thanks Fnord - I'll give it a whirl.

[LeFou]

Maybe making an aggressive, yet sensible bet is more appropriate. By betting at all, you are playing aggressively.

Rather: by betting frequently, you are playing aggressively. I think betting even 1/3 the pot > 50% of the time it comes to you is more aggressive than betting the pot 40% of the time.

[Zinnsoldaten]

I was half-potting like crazy in my 5-max game tonight. I think it enticed more calls from weaker hands, since everyone are used to pot-sized bets from TP/Set etc.

[Checkways]

Here's my problem with betting half the pot. And when I mean MY problem, I mean mine only. I'm sure others make it work for them.

1/2 pot bet looks a little weak to me. Maybe it's just me. But when I get called at 1/2 pot I don't know where I stand in the hand. Are they calling on the draw, are they trying to steal later, am I getting trapped? I just don't know.

Furthermore, my half pot bets rarely garner much respect from my opponents. And I do bluff and semibluff a lot. So I found myself betting the pot when I was bluffing and betting half the pot when I had a hand. And that's really pretty stupid.

Typically, I bet 2/3rds the pot unless the pot is really small in which case I'll bet the pot.

[Checkways]

Rather: by betting frequently, you are playing aggressively. I think betting even 1/3 the pot > 50% of the time it comes to you is more aggressive than betting the pot 40% of the time.

Statistically it might be more aggressive, but it just doesn't scare me. It doesn't scare most people either because they know the pot won't get out of hand. If someone is betting/raising the pot on the flop, I'm reluctant to call because I'm pretty sure that the showdown is really really far away and it may take my stack to find out if I have the best hand. Betting larger amounts puts pressure on people. You're making them think. Hopefully, their not as smart as you and will make more mistakes when forced to think.

However, I do like the idea of firing out on every street and lowering your variance at the same time. I've dropped dough against people that do that because I read them as weak and try to push them off the hand. However, I have destacked them too when my small pp hits its set on the river. I just don't know how effective it is yet. I'm definitely open to trying it though.