Aha moment

[jaytoi]

Ok i just realised something. It might only be in a few circumstances but whatever.

Lets say we have a mid high pocket pair (88-TT) out of position, on a ragged flop (722 for arguments sake). We know villian is nitty and will check through without a pair. And lets say his whole range at this point is JQ. He has about 25 percent equity at this point, but will fold to any bet, and will never bet if checked to. Additionally, lets assume even if he catches he wont bet , it will be checked through, and we will check behind (for simplicity's sake). Wouldn't it be better at this point to bet, even if we aren't making a worse hand call or a better hand fold, because it's better to win the pot 100% of the time rather than 75 %?

[kiwiMark]

My thoughts, not written with any degree of authority:

Yes, it's valid to bet in order to get villain to fold his equity share in the pot (in this case 25%). This is betting to pick up the dead money.

However, when we bet half pot or more, we're allowing villain to play perfectly against us (ie. fold when he doesn't have odds to call), so we want to be confident he's not going to make any mistakes later in the hand that we could exploit.

[JKDS]

Yes. Well i didnt think too hard about it but spoon stopped spreading this message awhile back and replaced it with a more correct kind of statement.

We bet so that villain will either make a mistake by calling, or a mistake by folding (or maybe even raising).

So in the above example...if he always folded we'd probably exploit that by betting pretty small...so that hed actually would of had odds to call with his overs but he didnt. So he made a mistake in folding. In a different case, we might bet larger so that theyd make a mistake in calling.

GJ catching the flaw

[Sup3rM4N]

Ok i just realised something. It might only be in a few circumstances but whatever.

Lets say we have a mid high pocket pair (88-TT) out of position, on a ragged flop (722 for arguments sake). We know villian is nitty and will check through without a pair. And lets say his whole range at this point is JQ. He has about 25 percent equity at this point, but will fold to any bet, and will never bet if checked to. Additionally, lets assume even if he catches he wont bet , it will be checked through, and we will check behind (for simplicity's sake). Wouldn't it be better at this point to bet, even if we aren't making a worse hand call or a better hand fold, because it's better to win the pot 100% of the time rather than 75 %?

Can't check behind OOP. Assuming you are the PFR since you are OOP, you will never be able to put someone on one specific hand (much less QJ for that matter) after one round of betting, especially PF. You will have to play your hand against his entire range for calling you IP PF and deduce his range down as the streets pass. With that being said, I think you answered your own question at the end.

[jaytoi]

Can't check behind OOP. Assuming you are the PFR since you are OOP, you will never be able to put someone on one specific hand (much less QJ for that matter) after one round of betting, especially PF. You will have to play your hand against his entire range for calling you IP PF and deduce his range down as the streets pass. With that being said, I think you answered your own question at the end.

Sorry i think i meant in position to begin with, then randomly changed my mind. I know we cant put villian on one hand, but we could put them on over cards if we were in position and they checked it to us (assuming they have like a 15 % range calling a raise preflop and will bet any overpair but check the rest). So we'd be in a similar situation where they have 25 % equity vs us.

I agree with JKDS here that we are inducing a mistake from villian if we bet small, because it's kind of like making a better hand fold- we induce a fold from a hand that didn't have more than 50% equity, but had more equity vs my range than required to call the bet.

However if we made a larger bet (full pot) and they called vs my range to hit their overcards, then we have induced a mistake from villian in calling, and it's a value bet.

Interesting how the betting on the same board with the same perceived range can vary in purpose. Against a nitty villian, it becomes nearly a bluff (making a hand with decent equity fold). Against an floaty/loose villian, it becomes a decided value bet.

[spoonitnow]

I'll answer a different question instead. Off of the top of my head, topics in order of how I would coach a standard BC 10nl'er if I knew they would work hard: Psychological Training, Introduction to EV and Equity, Basic EV calculations, Introduction to Value Betting, Common Themes in Value Betting, Introduction to [Semi-]Bluffing, Common Themes when [Semi-]Bluffing, The False Dichotomy of Value Betting vs Bluffing, Planning Hands, Introduction to Ranges, Card Removal and Patterns, Introduction to Hand Reading, Identifying Strong Weak and Balanced Ranges, Common Themes in Exploitative Play, Common Themes in Balanced Play, Advanced Introduction to Ranges, ISF's Theorem, Simple ISF's Theorem Applications, Intermediate ISF's Theorem Applications.

From: http://www.flopturnriver.com/pokerfo...ml#post1928816

Now expand your idea to play against a range over multiple streets and you're really getting somewhere that will carry you for a while.

We bet so that villain will either make a mistake by calling, or a mistake by folding (or maybe even raising).

We can bet for other reasons (though if you bet and the only reason you know you're betting is "to collect dead money" then you're fucking up), but in a vacuum over one street this about covers it, and it's just the Fundamental Theorem of Poker.

[Robin]

I don't think we're trying to induce a mistake from Villain in this sort of situation. It's more like doubling when you're ahead in backgammon - we gain their equity if they give up, and we gain if they agree to raising the stakes when they're behind.

I think there are a lot of situations where this is important. Say we raised JJ on the button, an unknown player called from the big blind, the flop came Q87 two suits and she checked to us. If the best hand after the flop always won, we should definitely not bet, because our opponent would probably play perfectly. But in real poker I'm pretty sure we should bet here almost all the time, because a big part of our opponent's range is behind us but has 8 or 9 outs - our bet is profitable against any of these holdings and that makes up for the fact that it's unprofitable against the rest. (There's another thing going on here too that I don't quite understand yet, perhaps someone better can elaborate on this... it's bad news to let our opponent get to the turn and the river with a wide range, because wider ranges are more profitable than narrow ranges.)

[surviva316]

this situation isn't nearly as rare as many of the repliers seem to think it. we open OTB w 66 at a 6m table and 18/14 weaktight type villain in the BB flats. based on reads we put his range on PP's 22-JJ and broadways QJ+, but not AK, and he may or may not have SC's or Axs (we don't know for sure). the flop comes K72r. villain doesn't rebluff often and never does OOP (isn't going to float OOP or c/r w over+BDFD or anything), and he calls cbets with any 2nd pair hand or better. we're not sure how fast he'll play a flopped set.

so he calls with nothing worse and folds nothing better, but we're not getting any value out of our hand by checking it back. what possible advantage does checking have that we don't get from cbetting?

these situations are REALLY common when we're OOP too, especially against weaktight players and people who set mine too much. passing up on ANY expected value of turning our hand into a bluff when we're OOP and not going to get any value from it on future streets very often makes cbetting vastly superior

[Santo2True]

so something like this?

PokerStars No-Limit Hold'em, $0.10 BB (6 handed) - Poker-Stars Converter Tool from FlopTurnRiver.com

saw flop | saw showdown

CO ($4.55)
Button ($1.80)
SB ($4.90)
BB ($3.85)
UTG ($6.40)
Hero (MP) ($6.20)

Preflop: Hero is MP with 7, 7
1 fold, Hero bets $0.30, CO calls $0.30, 3 folds

Flop: ($0.75) 10, 3, 5 (2 players)
Hero bets $0.50, 1 fold

Total pot: $0.75 | Rake: $0

Results:
Hero didn't show 7, 7.
Outcome: Hero won $0.75




cause if not, this happens?





PokerStars No-Limit Hold'em, $0.10 BB (6 handed) - Poker-Stars Converter Tool from FlopTurnRiver.com

saw flop | saw showdown

BB ($6.25)
UTG ($1.95)
MP ($4.80)
CO ($4.25)
Button ($4.85)
Hero (SB) ($4.90)

Preflop: Hero is SB with 9, 9
1 fold, MP bets $0.20, 2 folds, Hero raises to $0.60, BB calls $0.50, MP calls $0.40

Flop: ($1.80) 8, 2, A (3 players)
Hero checks, BB bets $0.10, MP calls $0.10, Hero calls $0.10

Turn: ($2.10) A (3 players)
Hero checks, BB checks, MP checks

River: ($2.10) 7 (3 players)
Hero checks, BB checks, MP checks

Total pot: $2.10 | Rake: $0.10

Results:
Hero had 9, 9 (two pair, Aces and nines).
BB mucked 10, 9 (one pair, Aces).
MP mucked 4, 4 (two pair, Aces and fours).
Outcome: Hero won $2


I know, second hand was bad all around

[Robin]

this situation isn't nearly as rare as many of the repliers seem to think it. we open OTB w 66 at a 6m table and 18/14 weaktight type villain in the BB flats. based on reads we put his range on PP's 22-JJ and broadways QJ+, but not AK, and he may or may not have SC's or Axs (we don't know for sure). the flop comes K72r. villain doesn't rebluff often and never does OOP (isn't going to float OOP or c/r w over+BDFD or anything), and he calls cbets with any 2nd pair hand or better. we're not sure how fast he'll play a flopped set.

so he calls with nothing worse and folds nothing better, but we're not getting any value out of our hand by checking it back. what possible advantage does checking have that we don't get from cbetting?

these situations are REALLY common when we're OOP too, especially against weaktight players and people who set mine too much. passing up on ANY expected value of turning our hand into a bluff when we're OOP and not going to get any value from it on future streets very often makes cbetting vastly superior

Possible advantages of checking compared with cbetting:

1) We don't put extra money in the pot when he's ahead (if we plan to fold to bets on later streets, because we think he's probably never bluffing).

2) We make extra money when he's behind, by calling a bet on the turn or the river (if we plan to call a bet on later streets, because we think he might bluff too often).

Not saying cbetting doesn't have it's advantages too, but to me the decision looks pretty close... do you mind me asking how you play your whole range in this spot?

I found the point you're making here helpful, so I dunno why I'm arguing about the example.

[LawDude]

Part of the issue here is the interaction between the fundamental theorem of poker and the issue of imperfect information.

If we knew what our opponent had, we would never bet unless better hands would fold or worse hands would call.

But where this usually arises is with a medium-strength, vulnerable hand. And the thing that makes the problem tricky is that these hands are not only vulnerable to draws (something we handle by charging players to draw out on us) but also bluffs (because we don't know what the opponent has and there are lots of hands in his or her range that beat us).

The more vulnerable your hand is to bluffing, the more legitimate it can become to bet to make a worse hand fold and take down the pot.

Interesting example from High Stakes Poker a couple of weeks ago. Tom Dwan was bluffing like crazy, just like he always did. Dennis Phillips, knowing what Dwan was up to, called a Dwan raise with K7 suited from the blinds and flopped top pair with his 7. He didn't bother trying to play the later streets; rather, he check-raised and shoved. Now, was that a bet designed to let worse hands call and better hands fold? No way. Phillips had a very vulnerable hand (a small pair), the board was almost certainly going to afford Dwan opportunities to bluff, and Dwan is a bluffing machine. He could also catch up and pair one of his overs.

I think it was the correct play under the circumstances.

[spoonitnow]

Just throwing this out there, but checking isn't 0 EV.