Unsure whether to c-bet?

[seven-deuce]

PokerStars No-Limit Hold'em, $0.10 BB (6 handed) - PokerStars Converter Tool from http://www.flopturnriver.com

Button ($7.70)
Hero (SB) ($11.50)
BB ($15.19)
UTG ($11.18)
MP ($13.81)
CO ($9.85)

Preflop: Hero is SB with J, J
3 folds, Button bets $0.30, Hero raises to $0.90, 1 fold, Button calls $0.60

Flop: ($1.90) Q, 2, 3 (2 players)
Hero checks, Button bets $1, Hero calls $1

Turn: ($3.90) A (2 players)
Hero checks, Button checks

River: ($3.90) 7 (2 players)
Hero checks, Button bets $5.80 (All-In), Hero folds

Total pot: $3.90 | Rake: $0.18

This situation seems to pop up every so often and i'm never sure what the best line is. I'm talking in general here not gonna be too villain specific.

I don't like c-betting here because i don't think our hands strong enough to value bet vs a typical calling range;

Text results appended to pokerstove.txt

213,840 games 0.007 secs 30,548,571 games/sec

Board: Qd 2s 3d
Dead:

equity win tie pots won pots tied
Hand 0: 62.859% 62.86% 00.00% 134418 0.00 { TT-99, AQs, KQs, AQo, KQo }
Hand 1: 37.141% 37.14% 00.00% 79422 0.00 { JJ }


And it doesn't have much semi-bluffing potential, but i also hate checking, giving up the initiative and turning it into a bluff catcher. Is check-folding the best option?

If we bet are we not getting called by better and folding out worse? He may have a couple of flush draws, and a few PP's below JJ he might call one street with.

Out of my pre-flop range i'd bet all my { Axdd Kxdd Q2s Q3s QQ+ }

Which breaks down as:

A2456789 K2456789 A45ss (16)

Q3ss Q23hh Q23cc QQ(3) KK(6) AA(6) (20)

Which means if my maths is right, i'm bluffing the flop 44% of the time and v-betting the remaining 56%. When i bet.

Seem's like a decent betting range here, then i'd be checking TT-JJ A2-A9hh A2-A9cc which is a total of 8+8+9 = 25 combinations.

This is a total of 61 combos, so in this scenario i'm betting the flop 59% of the time and checking 41%.

The strongest hand in my checking range is JJ which has shitty equity vs a betting range;

Board: Qd 2s 3d
Dead:

equity win tie pots won pots tied
Hand 0: 86.333% 86.33% 00.00% 133332 0.00 { AQs, AdJd, AdTd, KQs, KdJd, AQo, KQo }
Hand 1: 13.667% 13.67% 00.00% 21108 0.00 { JJ }

So check calling sucks. Shit if forgot to include the Qx and Kx suited bluffing hands (non diamond) in my checking range but you get the idea, is it best to check-fold here?

This was supposed to be an organised post, turned into a dis-organised ramble.

[daviddem]

I think c/c is fine because lots of aggressive villains will take a stab with a ton of bluffs, and lots of passive villains will check behind.

Also when you c/c you have opportunities on some diamond turn cards which you may elect to c/r as a bluff, or these same cards and A or K may slow him down.

[kickass]

I 3b to a dollar here with my entire 3b range and prolly bet the flop with my whole range too. I likely Chk fold this turn

[Cobra_1878]

I 3bet bigger pre and cbet the flop.

[seven-deuce]

I 3b to a dollar here with my entire 3b range and prolly bet the flop with my whole range too. I likely Chk fold this turn

I agree with making my 3-bet a little larger OOP but sizing issues aside, whats your reasoning for wanting to c-bet?

I 3bet bigger pre and cbet the flop.

Why do you c-bet this flop?

I mean, TT 99 are like the only hands we can get value from which is 12 combos. AQ and KQ make up 24 combos.

AJ AT are the only FD's i can see him having as well. So with very few draws to protect against is c-betting really a good choice here?

Does nobody think check-folding to showdown will yield the most EV?

Why turn a hand with good SDV into a bluff for no reason?

[Cobra_1878]

I cbet the flop because we probably have the best hand. It's a button raise and call, he probably isn't as strong as you think.

Also, I prefer aggression to passive play.

If he bet the turn, I think you would have to fold. At least you have a chance of winning the pot with a cbet on that flop. Doubtful you can c/c to showdown and still have the best hand.

[seven-deuce]

I cbet the flop because we probably have the best hand.

It's a button raise and call, he probably isn't as strong as you think.

Also, I prefer aggression to passive play.

At least you have a chance of winning the pot with a cbet on that flop.

@ bold, surely that's not a valid reason to bet. We're either v-betting or bluffing.

Second thing is it's a 3-bet pot, he called my 3-bet pre-flop.

I don't think our focus should be on winning the pot but making the most +EV play.

For example shoving all-in on the flop with 72o may win the pot, but it'd be a massively -EV play.

[Cobra_1878]

@ bold, surely that's not a valid reason to bet. We're either v-betting or bluffing.

Second thing is it's a 3-bet pot, he called my 3-bet pre-flop.

I don't think our focus should be on winning the pot but making the most +EV play.

For example shoving all-in on the flop with 72o may win the pot, but it'd be a massively -EV play.

If we have the best hand, are we not betting for value?

I realize it's a 3bet pot, without stats on villain, it's hard to go into too much detail. But just because he has called your 3bet, that doesn't automatically mean he has a strong hand.

For example, if villain is stealing a lot from the button, and he thinks you have adjusted to this by 3betting him, he may call with all kinds of crap, like 22+, any broadways, suited A's etc etc, just to see a flop and outplay you using position.

I think it's +EV to bet the flop when you have the best hand getting worse hands to call.

[daviddem]

If we have the best hand, are we not betting for value?

I realize it's a 3bet pot, without stats on villain, it's hard to go into too much detail. But just because he has called your 3bet, that doesn't automatically mean he has a strong hand.

I think it's +EV to bet the flop when you have the best hand getting worse hands to call.

Not at all. You bet for value because you expect to get called by more worse hands than better hands.

If you have the best hand and you bet and all worse hands fold, or 90% of the hands that call are better than yours, then it's not a value bet.

To make a value bet, you need more than 50% equity against the continuing range of your opponent.

[seven-deuce]

Yeah your not playing hand vs hand, your playing your range vs your opponents range.

Daviddem, is it not 50% equity vs the villains calling range? He can continue by raising with his nutted hands that he wouldn't flat call with.

[DoubleJ]

I'm talking in general here not gonna be too villain specific.

i don't get what you mean here; aren't these spots totally villain specific?

[seven-deuce]

i don't get what you mean here; aren't these spots totally villain specific?

I meant treat villain as decent player who has some idea of what he's doing, not any of the extreme types like really aggressive spewy players, stations, nits etc

Just a general, not terribly good not terribly bad player, capiche?

[daviddem]

No if you use only the calling range, you will overestimate your equity since you exclude better hands he would raise and you would fold against.

Moreover, if you intend to fold to a raise, then you should assign yourself 0 equity against this raising range. In this regard, pokerstove will always overestimate your equity because it gives you some phantom equity against this raising range, which you will never get because you will fold.

One caveat to that "50% rule" is that yes, strictly speaking, this is the definition of a value bet and this would be strictly true if the bet was all in.

However, one reason that I find valid for betting even when you are somewhat behind the range of your villain is when not betting will likely cause you to commit much bigger mistakes on further actions. One example would be against a villain who plays cautiously facing even moderate aggression, but will pick big time on weakness. In other words in a case like that, betting "makes the hand easier to play". People often use this argument to cbet KK OOP on a dry A high flop in a 3b pot. However you can't really call it a value bet or a bluff... So I guess it's sort of a blocking bet.

This being said, I still like a c/c here often because it keeps the range of your villain wide. I would expect most villains to take a stab with most of their range when checked to, expecting you to fold. And if not, fine he checks behind and you pot controlled and cheaply got this much closer to showdown with your middling hand, which is where you'd like to get to.

This being said, it is unlikely you can sustain much more aggression on further streets but:
- if it was a bluff villain will likely slow down
- there are a fair number of turn cards that will likely slow him down

[DoubleJ]

Just a general, not terribly good not terribly bad player, capiche?

'k, so wot range is he calling ur 3bet with?

[seven-deuce]

Dayum, Davvidem is droppin' knowledge bombs left, right and center today. I find that post intriguing, although i'm not entirely convinced it's correct to bet to for the sole reason of making the hand easier to play, but it just hit me their now it might be the correct way to play against an aggressive opponent like the one described in your post, and check vs passive opponents. This is food for thought, or you could for instance bet 3 combos of JJ and check the other 3 or something, i'm sure their is a way to set-up your range to deal with a situation like that. You could perhaps check 1/2 your combos of AQ if he's going to be bluffing nearly all the time you check to strengthen your checking range up.

@ DoubleJ - Something along the lines of { AT-AQ 88-TT KQ }

[Pelion]

Example: We have A T and X-ray specs. Villain has 22. We get into a blindwar and end up 5bet shoving with 51% equity for 100bbs.

Q1) Are we hoping he calls or folds?

Q2) Is it possible for him to fold a better hand, or call with a worse hand?

Q3) What type of bet is this? e.g. bluff/valuebet

Q4) Are there any other reasons to make a bet besides folding a better hand, or getting value from a worse hand?

[Fielmann]

1) We're hoping he folds.
3) Neither.
4) To win money by means of making the opponent fold a hand that is worse than ours but has equity in the pot.

I didn't understand Q2.

[MadMojoMonkey]

Example: We have A T and X-ray specs. Villain has 22. We get into a blindwar and end up 5bet shoving with 51% equity for 100bbs.

Q1) Are we hoping he calls or folds?

Q2) Is it possible for him to fold a better hand, or call with a worse hand?

Q3) What type of bet is this? e.g. bluff/valuebet

Q4) Are there any other reasons to make a bet besides folding a better hand, or getting value from a worse hand?

1) Hope he calls, 'cause our 51% equity is more than his 49%.
2) It is not possible for him to fold a better hand, because we have x-ray specs and know that our hand has more equity. It is possible for him to call with a worse hand for the same reason.
3) This is a value bet, Hero has the most equity.
4) No.*

*caveat: meta-game against a tough reg, but this is really just because we're playing ranges, not hands.

[Pelion]

I strongly suggest you work out the EV of:

100bb stacks

Villain raises to 3bb.
We 3bet to 9bb.
Villain 4bets to 22bb
We shove for 100bb.

EV of villain folding vs Calling when we have 51% equity.

[MadMojoMonkey]

Where did you get the 4-bet size?

I'll assume blind v blind to eliminate dead money.

If Villain folds, Hero wins the dead money in the pot prior to the jam:
22bb + 9bb = 31bb

If Villain calls, Hero's EV is Hero's equity times the size of the pot:
51%*200bb = 102bb

Like I said, it's not even close. Hero wants a call. This is a shove for value.

EDIT:
If Villain folds, Hero ends the hand with 122bb.
If Villain calls, Hero ends with 102bb.

RE-EDIT: What is the evolutionary advantage of getting migraines!

[Pelion]

You need to make sure you are calculating EV from the same point in each case. Either both from the start of the hand, or both from the point of the decision.

Your second calculation is correct, so although we have the best hand, we don't necessarily want a call.

If you want an even more clear-cut example, try shoving 1bb into a 99bb pot. Now do we want a call with 51% equity?
The answer is obviously no.

So clearly there is a third reason to bet besides value from worse hands, or making better hands fold. We can also win dead money by causing worse hands which still have significant equity to fold.

[Pelion]

If Villain folds, Hero wins the dead money in the pot prior to the jam:
22bb + 9bb = 31bb

If Villain calls, Hero's EV is Hero's equity times the size of the pot:
51%*200bb = 102bb

Also note that the first of these is an EV calculation. The second is an equity calculation. The two are not the same and you can't draw a direct comparison between these numbers.

When villain calls, our EV is the difference between what we expect to end the hand with and our stack at the moment.

so EV if villain folds is +31bb.

EV if villain calls is 102 - 91 = +11b

You can also work this out as a 109bb (pot + villain stack) win 51% of the time, or a 91bb (our stack) loss 49% of the time. 0.51*109 - 0.49*91 = +11bb

31bb > 11bb so we want him to fold

[Micro2Macro]

1) Hope he calls, 'cause our 51% equity is more than his 49%.
2) It is not possible for him to fold a better hand, because we have x-ray specs and know that our hand has more equity. It is possible for him to call with a worse hand for the same reason.
3) This is a value bet, Hero has the most equity.
4) No.*

*caveat: meta-game against a tough reg, but this is really just because we're playing ranges, not hands.

we'd prefer he folds because folding would be a mistake.

[MadMojoMonkey]

You need to make sure you are calculating EV from the same point in each case. Either both from the start of the hand, or both from the point of the decision.

I should have known something was amiss when things came out like that, but !@#$ migraine headaches do weird things to my thought process.

From the moment of Villain's decision:
If Villain folds, Hero's EV is:
100bb + 22bb = 122bb
All of the chips in the middle.

If Villain calls, Hero's EV is Hero's equity times the size of the pot:
51%*200bb = 102bb

Also note that the first of these is an EV calculation. The second is an equity calculation. The two are not the same and you can't draw a direct comparison between these numbers.

The sum of all probabilities (equities) times their associated outcomes (profit) is the EV.
51%*200bb + 49%*0bb = 102bb

When villain calls, our EV is the difference between what we expect to end the hand with and our stack at the moment.

Hero's stack at the moment when he's all in is 0bb.

I see that you consider Hero's stack to be 91bb in the following analysis, which is Hero's stack prior to the shove.

so EV if villain folds is +31bb.

EV if villain calls is 102 - 91 = +11b

You can also work this out as a 109bb (pot + villain stack) win 51% of the time, or a 91bb (our stack) loss 49% of the time. 0.51*109 - 0.49*91 = +11bb

31bb > 11bb so we want him to fold

This is, of course, all true.

We both show a spread of 20bb in favor of Villain folding.

we'd prefer he folds because folding would be a mistake.

Yes. I see it now. Thanks.

[daviddem]

So clearly there is a third reason to bet besides value from worse hands, or making better hands fold. We can also win dead money by causing worse hands which still have significant equity to fold.

All this is true, there is a thread I started a while ago precisely about this: http://www.flopturnriver.com/pokerfo...st-184249.html

However I am not sure how much it applies here. All these situations where we want worse hands to fold etc are because of stack size being limited, or when someone bets absurdly small with the best hand. In the case of the hand in OP, if we bet, we do not want worse hands to fold. If villain is holding AK and he calls a decently sized bet, he makes a mistake. If he folds it, he plays correctly.

[daviddem]

Dayum, Davvidem is droppin' knowledge bombs left, right and center today. I find that post intriguing, although i'm not entirely convinced it's correct to bet to for the sole reason of making the hand easier to play, but it just hit me their now it might be the correct way to play against an aggressive opponent like the one described in your post, and check vs passive opponents. This is food for thought, or you could for instance bet 3 combos of JJ and check the other 3 or something, i'm sure their is a way to set-up your range to deal with a situation like that. You could perhaps check 1/2 your combos of AQ if he's going to be bluffing nearly all the time you check to strengthen your checking range up.

@ DoubleJ - Something along the lines of { AT-AQ 88-TT KQ }

I kinda meant an over-aggressive who would pretty much always bet full pot or even shove when checked to and leave us wondering whether he is bluffing or not.

In the case of a reasonably aggro opp who will often take a 1/2 PSB stab at the pot when checked to with a whole bunch of bluffs, semi-bluffs, or hands like 77-TT which will want to charge overcards for drawing, then I still think c/c is a good play, because betting really narrows his range to hands that beat us.

[Pelion]

@daviddem - I agree, but this is where it becomes opponent dependent. JJ is a pretty decent hand on this board with a fair amount of showdown value so I agree.Obviously, if he never bluffs then we can c/f, and if he autobluffs at a check then we can c/c.

But generally speaking, against an opponent who folds to cbets too often (a mistake), but who will put us in tough spots at about the right frequencies (allowing us to make a mistake) when we check I still believe it can be correct to cbet a weak hand that is (barely) ahead of villains range and still hope for a fold.
An example would be something like 77-99 on this board. We are probably ahead here, but are crushed by any sensible calling range so we cannot bet for value. We are also highly unlikely to fold a better hand.

If villain will take stabs at the right frequencies to make our lives suck when we check, then we should just go ahead and cbet since we probably aren't getting to showdown when we check anyway, and since a huge number of the hands which fold will have 6 outs against us, or will bluff us out.

I guess you could think of this as villain's true equity when we check as being pot equity + fold equity, which would bring him above 50% equity (us below 50%) and turn our bet into a true bluff.

[daviddem]

Moving on to the river, what do you think this guy's range is after he shoves, other than bluffs? Which hands better than ours does he do this with? Do you think he plays KQ, QJs, QTs like this? KK? 77 makes the most sense to me.

Anyone wants to call this river?
Anyone wants to bet this river?

(some stats/reads from OP would help obv.)

[seven-deuce]

I still don't know why you would bet jacks, if the opponent is firing bluffs at the correct frequencies should we not just resort to playing a balanced unexploitable strategy, e.g.

Villain bets $1 to win $1.90 1/(1+1.9) = lets say 35%

So if we are folding more than 35% of the time we are exploitable to pure bluffs, although most of his betting range will have equity against us but i'm unsure how to account for this, i guess he just needs us to fold less than 35% because he wins at showdown some of the time.

So could we not set our range up so that we are folding exactly 35% or the adjusted % of the time if you account for semi-bluffs.

And have a range that looks like;

C-bet bluff--cbet value--check call--check raise bluff--check raise value--check fold.

We would want to make villain indifferent to bluffing when we check. Or we could just move a lot of our strong hands into our checking range so that we're not folding more than 35% of the time.

Was reading that thread davvidem made maybe we should make a fundamental theorum thread, because i don't know why you'd value bet with less that 50% equity, why turn a hand with SDV from your range into a bluff? Is it because when you have close to 50% equity you can still cause your opponent to make a mistake by calling with a hand worse than yours something close to the bottom of his calling range and fold a better hand some small % of the time, without giving a free card to a vulnerable hand???

[DoubleJ]

If Villain folds, Hero wins the dead money in the pot prior to the jam:
22bb + 9bb = 31bb

If Villain calls, Hero's EV is Hero's equity times the size of the pot:
51%*200bb = 102bb

Like I said, it's not even close. Hero wants a call. This is a shove for value.

EDIT:
If Villain folds, Hero ends the hand with 122bb.
If Villain calls, Hero ends with 102bb.

can't we just assess it from Villain's viewpoint:

If we shove (using Pelion's bet sizes) he has to call 78bb to win 122bb

His breakeven is thus 39%, and so 49% equity give him +20bb EV, and therefore:

we'd prefer he folds because folding would be a mistake.

[seven-deuce]

I attempted an EV calc for fun to play around with different bet sizes etc but i think i did something wrong. It's about this hand by the way. We bet the flop with JJ with 2 outs.

He calls a $1 bet on the flop 100% of the time and we miss 45/47 of the time and lose $1

EV = (45/47)(-1)

He calls the flop 100% and we hit on the turn 2/47 of the time and he calls a $2.50 bet on the turn 100% of the time and calls a $5 river bet 9/10 of the time we win $10.40

EV = (2/47)(9/10)(10.4)

He calls the flop we hit, he calls turn, and raises river (1/10) times, we lose $5.

EV = (2/47)(1/10)(-5)



0 = (45/47)(-1) + (2/47)(1/10)(-5) + (2/47)(9/10)(10.4)

So when i put the above into the algebra solver in spoons mathematics of EV thread it comes out at, '0.580425531914894=0'

But when i put EV in front of the equals sign instead of 0 it comes out at,

EV=-0.580425531914894.

Have i done something wrong? What's the aim of putting a 0 in front of the equals sign instead of EV? I'm confused.

[DoubleJ]

What's the aim of putting a 0 in front of the equals sign instead of EV? I'm confused.

to find the break-even point

[griffey24]

I appreciate you not wanting to be too villain specific, but this is SUCH a villain specific spot.

What are your assumptions here? What is his call 3b % vs 4b vs fold?

I find that players that fold most 3bets and that don't set hunt in 3b pots, are heavily Qx weighted (JQs/KQ/AQ and some stuff like 99-TT). Obviously vs these players betting and shutting down or c/c and c/f turn could be in order.

Some other players call all pairs, all suited hands etc. Vs. those players I'm happy firing twice here, because they are just generally cally to begin with and like putting us on AK.

[seven-deuce]

I appreciate you not wanting to be too villain specific, but this is SUCH a villain specific spot.

What are your assumptions here? What is his call 3b % vs 4b vs fold?

I find that players that fold most 3bets and that don't set hunt in 3b pots, are heavily Qx weighted (JQs/KQ/AQ and some stuff like 99-TT). Obviously vs these players betting and shutting down or c/c and c/f turn could be in order.

Some other players call all pairs, all suited hands etc. Vs. those players I'm happy firing twice here, because they are just generally cally to begin with and like putting us on AK.

In the OP i stated i didn't want to be too villain specific because i was interested in analysing this general scenario to see what is the best play according to poker theory/fundamental theorem of poker.

The scenario is:

We 3bet a semi-competent player pre-flop with a hand like JJ and flop an underpair to the board, now what do we do?

Against a sensible calling range we aren't value betting by definition. I.e we have less than 50% equity vs their calling range. We have a lot better hands in our range we can semi-bluff this flop with rather than sacrifice a hand with decent showdown value. But we also don't want to check and play a guessing game for 3 streets OOP.

So what do we do, how do we combat this tricky situation? That was the aim of this thread.



So i resorted to Slanksy's ToP last night and found this on Pg. 93

"Betting is particularly important when you're in first position, in which case you should apply the following rule: If your hand is worth a call or almost worth a call when someone else bets, it is better to bet yourself, especially when you have little fear of a raise and when there is some chance you will win right there by making your opponent fold".

He then gives an example from another form of poker and says this;

"If you know there is no chance that your opponent will fold a pair of queens, the semi-bluff becomes more debatable, for by definition a semi-bluff is a bet where there is some chance your opponent will fold a hand he should have played".

Since we can never expect anyone to fold a queen here for 1 bet is betting really the right play?

I mean if we were planning on double or triple barreling trying to make him fold a queen by representing AA KK or QQ there are plenty of hands with better semi-bluffing potential than JJ here, Axdd etc?

I really don't know what is right here.

[griffey24]

I think you're focusing too much on Qx. I think it's a hard thing to do, but trying to focus beyond the highest card on board and trying to look at all the cards that could be calling here is helpful.

Especially on a board with one high card and two very low cards, I don't think mid pockets are just rampant folding.

These are all possible hands that will call. Sure we can discount some mid pairs, but we can also prob discount some AQ (4b sometimes pre). Some ppl could also show up with a ton more FD's than what I included:

AQ - 12
KQ - 12
QJs - 1 QJcc

25 combos Qx

AJdd - 1
ATdd - 1
A9dd - 1
JTdd - 1
9Tdd - 1
TT - 6
99 - 6
88 - 6
77 - 6
66 - 6

35 combos worse than JJ

Some ppl even float ATss, KJss etc.

[Pelion]

"Betting is particularly important when you're in first position, in which case you should apply the following rule: If your hand is worth a call or almost worth a call when someone else bets, it is better to bet yourself, especially when you have little fear of a raise and when there is some chance you will win right there by making your opponent fold".

Again, this is very opponent and situation specific.

It is very common to find opponents who will call tightly, but will attack weakness with an autobet (bluff). Against these opponents, your hand is very often worth a call when it is not worth betting yourself.

Consider the very common c/c on the river when a draw misses.

[eugmac]

Also don't we have to take into account how often villain is semibluff raising the flop?