The 3 reasons we bet

[Ragnar4]

Split from the TT betting for information stuff that Jolub posted.

Ok. I got to thinking about the 3 reasons we bet, and I just want to make sure I have it, because to be honest.. I'm not feeling it.

1. Because we have the best hand, and want to get money into the pot with the best hand.
2. Because we think we have the opportunity to win the pot right now.
3. Because we have a very large draw, and we want to bloat the pot should our draw come in.

amirite?

[AFchung]

4. to push our opponent off a weak hand that is still stronger than ours

[spoonitnow]

There are more than 3 reasons but none of them are listed in this thread yet, only applications of some of the reasons. Break it down to a more basic level: what do your #1 and #2 REALLY do?

[jyms]

If a bet is made and a worse hand folds, did it make a sound?

[Ragnar4]

There are more than 3 reasons but none of them are listed in this thread yet, only applications of some of the reasons. Break it down to a more basic level: what do your #1 and #2 REALLY do?

Gonna have to spend time thinking about this.. because I'm drawing a blank off the top of my head.

[spoonitnow]

There are more than 3 reasons but none of them are listed in this thread yet, only applications of some of the reasons. Break it down to a more basic level: what do your #1 and #2 REALLY do?

Gonna have to spend time thinking about this.. because I'm drawing a blank off the top of my head.

I'll get you started: if we bet and better hands fold that's a _________. If we bet and worse hands call that's a __________.

[Ragnar4]

If a bet is made and a worse hand folds, did it make a sound?

Technically, you always want the worse hands to call, and you always want the hands that are better to fold, but that's more about pot size manipulation isn't it?

[spoonitnow]

If a bet is made and a worse hand folds, did it make a sound?

Technically, you always want the worse hands to call, and you always want the hands that are better to fold, but that's more about pot size manipulation isn't it?

No, this is exactly the point. If a bet [or raise] doesn't do one of those two things (get a worse hand to call or a better hand to fold) then it's rather likely that the bet [or raise] shouldn't be made.

[Ragnar4]

ok.

1) To get better hands to fold
2) to get worse hands to call.
3) (bloating the pot doesn't do either, but I still think this is correct) Bloating the pot when you have equity

[spoonitnow]

ok.

1) To get better hands to fold
2) to get worse hands to call.
3) (bloating the pot doesn't do either, but I still think this is correct) Bloating the pot when you have equity

Another way of saying #3 is when your pot equity dictates it's +EV, which is probably just a subcase of #2. This is often most pronounced when we have a combo-draw in NLHE or in a multi-way pot in LHE where we might have like the nut flush draw 5-way and make a raise because everyone will call it. It creates a +EV situation because we're putting less money into the pot percentage-wise than the equity we have in the pot.

Other aspects of betting are for information and manipulation and things like that.

If a bet is made and a worse hand folds, did it make a sound?

Technically, you always want the worse hands to call, and you always want the hands that are better to fold, but that's more about pot size manipulation isn't it?

No, this is exactly the point. If a bet [or raise] doesn't do one of those two things (get a worse hand to call or a better hand to fold) then it's rather likely that the bet [or raise] shouldn't be made.

That's wrong.

Say I have a worse hand, but I have a flush draw. You shove your TPTK in because the pot is large enough to do that, and I fold. Does that mean you should let me draw for free?

So the third reason is to protect our hand. The fourth reason is for information.

[bigspenda73]

I don't bet, I like to c/c all the time

[spoonitnow]

If a bet is made and a worse hand folds, did it make a sound?

Technically, you always want the worse hands to call, and you always want the hands that are better to fold, but that's more about pot size manipulation isn't it?

No, this is exactly the point. If a bet [or raise] doesn't do one of those two things (get a worse hand to call or a better hand to fold) then it's rather likely that the bet [or raise] shouldn't be made.

That's wrong.

Say I have a worse hand, but I have a flush draw. You shove your TPTK in because the pot is large enough to do that, and I fold. Does that mean you should let me draw for free?

So the third reason is to protect our hand. The fourth reason is for information.

No, "protecting your hand" is just a subcase of getting worse hands to call -- just because the hand is classified as a "draw" doesn't change the simple fact that it has less equity than the aggressor like all other value-betting cases.

A third reason to bet or raise is information, but my understanding is that the number of cases you will run into to utilize this effectively before mid-stakes is very low.

A fourth reason is manipulation. A free card play is a good basic example here.

[Miffed22001]

no-one has yet mentioned the fundamental theorem of poker

[spoonitnow]

I don't bet, I like to fc/fc all the time

Flat check/flat call imo

If a bet is made and a worse hand folds, did it make a sound?

Technically, you always want the worse hands to call, and you always want the hands that are better to fold, but that's more about pot size manipulation isn't it?

No, this is exactly the point. If a bet [or raise] doesn't do one of those two things (get a worse hand to call or a better hand to fold) then it's rather likely that the bet [or raise] shouldn't be made.

That's wrong.

Say I have a worse hand, but I have a flush draw. You shove your TPTK in because the pot is large enough to do that, and I fold. Does that mean you should let me draw for free?

So the third reason is to protect our hand. The fourth reason is for information.

No, "protecting your hand" is just a subcase of getting worse hands to call -- just because the hand is classified as a "draw" doesn't change the simple fact that it has less equity than the aggressor like all other value-betting cases.

A third reason to bet or raise is information, but my understanding is that the number of cases you will run into to utilize this effectively before mid-stakes is very low.

A fourth reason is manipulation. A free card play is a good basic example here.

No, I'm OK with a draw folding because I gain equity when a draw folds correctly, or when a draw calls incorrectly. Obviously, I'd prefer him to call, but I'd take a fold over giving him a free card.

[Ragnar4]

I don't bet, I like to c/c all the time

Sweet, now I can play as good as spenda.

[spoonitnow]

If a bet is made and a worse hand folds, did it make a sound?

Technically, you always want the worse hands to call, and you always want the hands that are better to fold, but that's more about pot size manipulation isn't it?

No, this is exactly the point. If a bet [or raise] doesn't do one of those two things (get a worse hand to call or a better hand to fold) then it's rather likely that the bet [or raise] shouldn't be made.

That's wrong.

Say I have a worse hand, but I have a flush draw. You shove your TPTK in because the pot is large enough to do that, and I fold. Does that mean you should let me draw for free?

So the third reason is to protect our hand. The fourth reason is for information.

No, "protecting your hand" is just a subcase of getting worse hands to call -- just because the hand is classified as a "draw" doesn't change the simple fact that it has less equity than the aggressor like all other value-betting cases.

A third reason to bet or raise is information, but my understanding is that the number of cases you will run into to utilize this effectively before mid-stakes is very low.

A fourth reason is manipulation. A free card play is a good basic example here.

No, I'm OK with a draw folding because I gain equity when a draw folds correctly, or when a draw calls incorrectly. Obviously, I'd prefer him to call, but I'd take a fold over giving him a free card.

The underlined is simply misinformed: our goal is to maximize value, not equity.

Suppose we bet x amount all-in into pot cx where c is a positive real number. Villain is getting (cx+x): x pot odds, and so he needs an equity of less than x/(cx+2x) for a call to be incorrect. Assume our equity E > 1 - x/(cx+2x), so Villain's options are an incorrect call or a fold.

If Villain folds, we profit cx. Now we show that the value of Villain calling E(cx+x) is always greater:

If Villain calls, we profit:
E(cx+x)
> (1 - x/(cx+2x))(cx+x)
= cx+x - x(cx+x)/(cx+2x)
> cx+x - x*
= cx

* Note: (cx+x)/(cx+2x) < 1 and cx+x is always positive. If you have trouble seeing it, consider W - 0.5x > W - x where W = cx+x.

Therefore having Villain make an incorrect call is always better.

[bigspenda73]

I don't bet, I like to fc/fc all the time

Flat check/flat call imo

check dark/smooth call

[spoonitnow]

I don't bet, I like to fc/fc all the time

Flat check/flat call imo

check dark/smooth call

Cold check/call dark

Of course having the draw call is better, but if we know our opponent won't call without correct odds, that DOESN'T MAKE OUR BET INCORRECT.

Another example: we're in an SNGs with 10BBs
BU raises to 3x, SB folds
we shove JTs and BU folds 22

we're ahead of 22, but don't we prefer that he folded? After all, while we're ahead, he has pot odds to call and we'd prefer him to fold

we got worse folding, but because of the size of the pot we don't dislike it

[swiggidy]

My first thoughts...

Value
Deception
Protection

There are more than 3 IMO.

[bigspenda73]

I don't bet, I like to fc/fc all the time

Flat check/flat call imo

check dark/smooth call

Cold check/call dark

remember that HSP hand where Sammy raises PF, Gold rr's, sammy calls and bets the flop dark and gold raises the flop dark. One of the funniest hands ever and jamie had AA and sammy like QQ and that was like hte only way Gold wasn't getting paid.

[bigspenda73]

Split from the TT betting for information stuff that Jolub posted.

Ok. I got to thinking about the 3 reasons we bet, and I just want to make sure I have it, because to be honest.. I'm not feeling it.

1. Because we have the best hand, and want to get money into the pot with the best hand.
2. Because we think we have the opportunity to win the pot right now.
3. Because we have a very large draw, and we want to bloat the pot should our draw come in.

amirite?

Ok, in a simple sense:

1. Yes, you're correct, if we feel we have the best hand it is typically correct to bet. However, there are spots where it is not. Can you think of any of these?

2. I would guess this pertains to our opponents drawing against us and their immediate/implied odds. If this is the case, then yes, this is a good reason to bet. What would be the key factor in this bet?

3. I feel like this statement could be coming from someone who read SSLHE like I did when I first started and was playing loose/passive FR LHE games. Whenever you bet, you're obviously building a bigger pot, so what are some better reasons to bet/raise our draws?

[kb coolman]

1. Yes, you're correct, if we feel we have the best hand it is typically correct to bet. However, there are spots where it is not. Can you think of any of these?

2. I would guess this pertains to our opponents drawing against us and their immediate/implied odds. If this is the case, then yes, this is a good reason to bet. What would be the key factor in this bet?

3. I feel like this statement could be coming from someone who read SSLHE like I did when I first started and was playing loose/passive FR LHE games. Whenever you bet, you're obviously building a bigger pot, so what are some better reasons to bet/raise our draws?

1) Where we have the nut hand, and WANT the opp to improve to a still dominated hand.

2) If we're talking about drawing, you want to bet to give you opponent incorrect odds to call.

3) To win the pot now by representing a made hand?

[bigspenda73]

Close on some, I'd like Ragnar to respond before I give my complete thoughts.

[Ragnar4]

Close on some, I'd like Ragnar to respond before I give my complete thoughts.

Ok.

Obviously the most primal reasons we bet come from extrapolation of Sklansky's Fundamental Theorem of Poker.

1) You bet, and if your opponent could see your hand he would call, but he didn't call, he folded and therefore you win.
--We bet to get better hands to fold.
2) You bet, and if your opponent could see your hand he would fold, but he didn't fold he called, and therefore you win
--We bet to get worse hands to call
TOP Subnote) These two points can be achieved more effectively through pot manipulation type bets. IE if you have a full house, you can bet less to try to encourage a flush or straight to come along, and if you only have top pair, you can bet more to give worse odds to same draws.

Finally from your Q3 Spenda. Yeap, it's SSH was my bible playing limit holdem.

Well, by betting/raising we are jacking the initiative as long as we are in position. And we aren't supposed to be betting/raising draws in position without large overlay. So. You're betting in position to cause your opponent to go passive on the turn so you can check out if you miss with your draw.

--We bet to assume/retain control of the hand?

I gave up reading before Spoon came in and said.
We bet for information. (Not a the Micros)
We bet for pot manipulation

[OhBollocks]

I didnt read every reply ITT but here goes...

There are lots of reasons to bet but primarily we bet:
(A) For value
(B) To encourage our opponent to make a mistake

[dranger7070]

I don't bet, I like to fc/fc all the time

Flat check/flat call imo

check dark/smooth call

Cold check/call dark

remember that HSP hand where Sammy raises PF, Gold rr's, sammy calls and bets the flop dark and gold raises the flop dark. One of the funniest hands ever and jamie had AA and sammy like QQ and that was like hte only way Gold wasn't getting paid.

You got the hands wrong

Gold had KK and Sammy had AA.

After all that action I still can't believe they didn't get it all in with the board they had.

[Sasquach991]

We bet because if we don't we're just a spectator

[GatorJH]

I thought it was KK vs QQ and they were both acting like they had AA

[a500lbgorilla]

I thought sammy was wearing darker sunglasses thus winning the hand

[GatorJH]

it was KK vs AA

http://weblomaniac.blogspot.com/2007...-vs-jamie.html

[Vrax]

Postflop bets (and raises) are mainly for value and bluff. That's it. Rest of reasons (protection, blockers, pot sweeteners) are just subcategories of those two and depend on our overall equity and purpose of betting.

Value:
- blocking bets (to get value from worse and stop bluffs to some extent)
- protection bets (to give bad odds vs hands with reasonable equity)
- pure value bets (to get value from worse by getting called)
- bluff-inducing bets (to get value frome worse by getting raised)
- potbuilding bets (to set-up bigger bets on later streets)

Bluff :
- betting as stone cold bluff (total air, near zero pot equity)
- betting as semibluff (hand with some equity vs calling range)

The so-called "bets for information" are either for value or as a bluff, depending on what kind of info we got from them and how we want to use that info.