When to turn my hand into a bluff.

[DJJunkPauds]

Often I find myself in a spot where I have showdown value - I'm ahead of my opponents range - but there's no expectation in allowing another card.

I'm playing 100NL, with 100 effective, and I'm folded to on the button. I make it $4, and get called only by the BB. The flop comes down 842 rainbow, and the BB checks. My opponent can have any set, TT, JJ, missed small pairs, AT-AQ, KJ+. Let's just accept that for the sake of the exercise this range is correct.

With missed small pairs, and over cards, he's done with the hand, unless he improves. The only time he's putting another penny into the pot is if he has one of the hands that has me drawing to 2 outs, or if I let him improve, and if he improves, it's to a hand that has me drawing to 2 outs.

There's no expectation in seeing another card, so I bet my over pair as a steal. If I'm called, I'm dead, and if I'm raised, I'm folding. Then it occurs to me that I just turned a frickin' over pair into a bluff, which is gross.

I've boiled the hand above down to bare essentials, just to illustrate the point. More commonly there are at least some hands that will be paying me off, but still not enough to be betting for value. There will also be some hands that could catch, if I give a free card, that will be paying me off if they do, but still more that will have me beat when they catch.

Imagine the same preflop action as above, only this time the flop is Q72, different suits. I expect to have my cbet called on the flop by any queen, any pair as high as a jack, AJ, sets, and 2pair. I'm ahead of my opponent's range, so I bet for value, and get called. The turn is an off suit 2, and villain checks. If I bet now, my opponent folds all hands that I beat, except perhaps 88, or in other words, betting turns my hand into a bluff. If I let a river come for free, my opponent check folds the same range, with the exception of perhaps 78s/67s, which is only a small part of his non-folding range. I get value out of those holdings, but I also allow AJ to catch a pair, and the small pairs to catch a set, which added together dwarf the part of his range that is a pair of 7s.

Am I missing something here? Am I over estimating how often I'm in this spot? What's the standard play for this situation? Call it protecting your hand all you like, but all I can see is the pain of throwing away showdown value.

Playing marginal hands for value is something I struggle with altogether, and I feel like it's probably my biggest leak.

[Stacks]

First off, in the first example I think you have villain on too tight of a continuing range. You say the flop is 842r and he checks. Let's assume you have AA in this spot, as you describe betting an overpair. Obviously he is continuing with sets (88/44/22), any overpair (99-KK)[Note, he might 3bet some of the larger overpairs, but not 100% of the time], but you seem to think that's it. First of all, most villain's are c/calling at least 1 street with hands like 55-77, 87s, 98s, 56s, 76s, not to mention the times he c/calls overcards like AJ-AK, which won't be 0% frequency. So against that range, we definitely have the needed equity to valuebet, and should. So referring to a cbet on this flop with an overpair as a bluff seems incorrect to me.

Secondly, I do notice some situations like the one you are describing in which I'm not 100% sure the correct line. Where it feels like if I bet nothing worse will call, and nothing better will fold, however, I don't expect to get any added value out of checking due to (1) I don't plan to call a bet on the next street without improving or (2) I don't think I can properly value bet the next street. So checking seems like I'm just allowing him to realize his equity in the pot, which I think would be worse than betting.

I don't have a hand history to detail the above spot that I feel a little lost in, and since I've been on a bit of a break, I haven't taken the time to analysis the spot, but it seems to occur in small pots. Such as, I raise A8s on the BU, and BB calls. Flop is 247r, BB checks. C-betting here wouldn't be a value bet, as we just don't have >50% equity here, as not enough worse hands call. Betting on this street doesn't seem like a profitable bluff, as most any better hand is at least calling this street (maybe with the exception of a better Ax or two).

So I don't really see a reason to bet; however, checking seems flawed also. If we check hands like JTs have 25% equity against us, and get to see another card realizing a portion of that equity. While checking does allow these inferior hands to make mistakes that betting doesn't (as we don't expect him to call a flop bet with JTs), by betting into us on subsequent streets, in most situations I find that calling 1-2 bets in these situations as -EV.

Checking in this situation also seems to make our range pretty transparent thus allowing villain to fire turn/river pretty often, thus giving him fold equity in addition to his pot equity.

It just seems that in these situations, even though our bet doesn't stand to get value or fold better hands, it might be best to bet just for the sake of villain relinquishing his pot equity in the hand, plus us maintaining initiative for turn/river bets (whether we improve and value bet, or decide to continue a bluff).

Just some thoughts.

Edit: Just want to point out I realize reads can come in handy in these situations and influence the situation more clearly towards betting/checking. Such as, if he's likely to bet turn/river with 100% of range if we check behind flop, then checking behind and calling down with Ahi might be best. And that if villain is aware that our range is weak when we check behind the flop, then we should do so with some of our stronger hands to strengthen this checking range, thus making it less profitable for villain to bluff turn/river against our range.

Just note though that the above example is against an unknown, or one in which we don't have enough detail about their postflop play.

[DJJunkPauds]

The situations are artificially simplified to illustrate a point, but yeah, I'm v-betting an overpair there all day.

And yes, it seems like you've struggled with the same spot as I'm trying to describe. I guess the answer is to the hand into a bluff - that's certainly what I do - but it still seems gross.

[spoonitnow]

Then it occurs to me that I just turned a frickin' over pair into a bluff, which is gross.

You're not really turning it into a bluff because you don't expect him to fold better.

[DJJunkPauds]

You're not really turning it into a bluff because you don't expect him to fold better.

Okay, that's correct, but expand on that; how does this tie in with what I'm asking about. I mean, fact remains, there's -ev in not getting a fold while holding a hand that is ahead of villains range. My brain doesn't really like that.

[Stacks]

I think it comes down to the fact that the bet is correct if "worse hands call" and "better hands fold" is a bit simplified. It's the mistakes that we are wanting villain to make. Villain can have a worse hand, yet be getting the proper odds to call, thus calling isn't a mistake for him, whereby folding is.

Example: The A8s sample. If say villain has JdTd on the flop of 2c4h7d, and we have As8s, then villain has ~29% equity. If we bet 1/2 pot here, he only needs 25% equity to call. Thus he has enough equity to call correctly. Therefore, a fold from him would be incorrect. Here he has a worse hand (A8 > JT), however, we would rather him fold (I think) due to the fact he has the equity needed to call a 1/2 PSBet. That is we would rather him fold if 1/2 pot was our bet amount. If we bet larger, and the needed equity exceeds his equity in the pot, then we would want him to call.

But tbh, this is just late night ramblings, so I'm not sure it makes sense, or if it's correct. On top of all that, I'm not sure it has anything to do with the actual situation of whether we should be in these situations or not.

[Stacks]

Was pointed out the above example is incorrect unless the 1/2 PSB was all-in, due to future betting that may occur. Still confused though.

[DJJunkPauds]

I think it comes down to the fact that the bet is correct if "worse hands call" and "better hands fold" is a bit simplified. It's the mistakes that we are wanting villain to make. Villain can have a worse hand, yet be getting the proper odds to call, thus calling isn't a mistake for him, whereby folding is.

Example: The A8s sample. If say villain has JdTd on the flop of 2c4h7d, and we have As8s, then villain has ~29% equity. If we bet 1/2 pot here, he only needs 25% equity to call. Thus he has enough equity to call correctly. Therefore, a fold from him would be incorrect. Here he has a worse hand (A8 > JT), however, we would rather him fold (I think) due to the fact he has the equity needed to call a 1/2 PSBet. That is we would rather him fold if 1/2 pot was our bet amount. If we bet larger, and the needed equity exceeds his equity in the pot, then we would want him to call.

But tbh, this is just late night ramblings, so I'm not sure it makes sense, or if it's correct. On top of all that, I'm not sure it has anything to do with the actual situation of whether we should be in these situations or not.

In your example I'd love for him to call with a worse hand. I don't mind someone drawing if they're paying the maximum they are willing to pay to do so. No actually, I love them drawing, if they're paying the maximum, I don't mind if they're paying *something*. If he's going to call that flop with hands like JT, you can v-bet, even half half psb all in.

[DJJunkPauds]

Just to be clear, it's not like there isn't an answer to the original topic that jumps out at me. It's bet to get villain to fold, because that yields the maximum expectation. I think that's what spoon is hinting at me when he makes his point about the betting without thinking it will fold a better hand. We're protecting our hand. The thing is, if there's no way to profit from having more than 50% showdown equity against villains range, what is it exactly I'm protecting? Why does it matter that I have showdown equity?

That's the obvious answer, it's just that I'm not sure it's the right one.

[Micro2Macro]

dig through the high stakes forum on 2+2, lots of good hands in there (somewhere among all the trolling etc) that would be examples.

on a slightly related note search for aejones' thread about 'merging', lots of good discussion in that.

[littleogre]

Well as a micro player the concept of turning made hands in to a bluff seems odd. Anyway from reading ltbr and 2p2 here are a couple places where yoy can turn a made hand into a bluff. Keep in mind that i don't actually use these plas just passing along info trying to help out. Say you have AA and you get to a river that bring 3 to a flush and also pairs the board. At higher stakes you can turn your Aces into a bluff. To try and fold out str8s and weak flushes.

[Renton]

I think its excellent that you are thinking about this concept at such an early point in your development as a player.

Your hand reading obviously needs some work though, and at you likely need to scale back and work on mastering basics of value betting and winning pots when no one has anything.

[littleogre]

op might want to check out the current cotw at 2p2

[DJJunkPauds]

I think its excellent that you are thinking about this concept at such an early point in your development as a player.

Your hand reading obviously needs some work though, and at you likely need to scale back and work on mastering basics of value betting and winning pots when no one has anything.

Undoubtedly my hand reading needs work, but in what way do you mean specifically, as related to this? Also, isn't this topic a part of the "basics of value betting and winning pots when no one has anything"? Perhaps you could be more specific.


Littleogre: which CotW?

[littleogre]

Undoubtedly my hand reading needs work, but in what way do you mean specifically, as related to this? Also, isn't this topic a part of the "basics of value betting and winning pots when no one has anything"? Perhaps you could be more specific.


Littleogre: which CotW?

This weeks cotw is about the subject of turning your hand into a bluff. I think it is actually titled turning your made hand into a bluff.

[DJJunkPauds]

I can see it scheduled on this page: ****Concept of the Week" Schedule and Table of Contents**** - Micro Stakes Full Ring Games - Micro Stakes Poker Strategy Forum

But I can't actually find the post itself. Have you actually read it, littleogre? If so, can I have a link please?

[littleogre]

I can see it scheduled on this page: ****Concept of the Week" Schedule and Table of Contents**** - Micro Stakes Full Ring Games - Micro Stakes Poker Strategy Forum

But I can't actually find the post itself. Have you actually read it, littleogre? If so, can I have a link please?

COTW: Turning Made Hands into Bluffs - Micro Stakes Full Ring Games - Micro Stakes Poker Strategy Forum

[Renton]

Undoubtedly my hand reading needs work, but in what way do you mean specifically, as related to this? Also, isn't this topic a part of the "basics of value betting and winning pots when no one has anything"? Perhaps you could be more specific.


Littleogre: which CotW?

No turning hands with showdown value into bluffs is a pretty advanced concept, and it requires impeccable hand-reading skill to be able to determine the situations in which it is proper to do so.

[DJJunkPauds]

No turning hands with showdown value into bluffs is a pretty advanced concept, and it requires impeccable hand-reading skill to be able to determine the situations in which it is proper to do so.

Aha, well see, what I was doing was the opposite. I was automatically turning them in to bluffs, for fear that taking them to showdown is too advanced a theory, and required impeccable hand reading skill. The fear that if I sacrifice initiative, I'm not going to know where I'm at.