should i be reaching for my stack

Bandana boy

50-1 HE 6 max PPP
Villain is a complete donkey
I have had 2 showdowns with him so far
Hand 1 I raise on button to 3 with AQ Villain in BB calls all else fold
Pot 6.5
Flop rainbow Q64
I bet pot he calls
Pot 19
Turn
td putting Diamond flush draw on board
I bet 14 he calls
River a diamond
He checks i check behind he has AJ diamonds

Hand 2
I raise on button to 3 with 8ts Villain min raises me to 6 i make it 12 to play he calls
Pot
26
Flop 664
He checks
I bet out 26 he calls
And i check down turn and river
We Split!!!!!!!!!!!! both having 8t

So Hand 3 Stacks
Hero button 140
Villain BB 150

I limp on button with 33
No Raise and we see a flop
q88
Checked around and i check
Turn 6 putting fd
Checked around and i check
River 3 completing the flush
Checked to me i bet 3
SB fold BB raises to 6
I make it 12 and he raises to 24

Action

sunzz

flat call.

careca

So he min raised - you min reraised - he min reraised again
so you have a monster - he has a monster.

I'd say min reraise

El Stuntman

shove, he has caught his flush

Gholimoli

man whats the story with the min raises.
"i raise 6,he makes it 8,i make it 12".
why is min raising so attractive?
ok raise with your 33 on the button .limping is not good specially if your openning the pot.
i would just shov here .bad luck if he has a better boat but there are lots and lots of hand that he would call with that you have beat.
he would call with any flush,any 8 as well so i would stick it to him and he wins i would be certain i would get it all back anyway if he stayed for long enough.

DeadParrot

As said below, its hard to picture him beatign you at this point unless you're cursed and he has 83 or Q8. Give the way he has played he's either hit his flush or thinks he is being cute with a set.
Hate the min raises, shove a sizeable amount at him, actually push, and push quickly, get him caught up in the heat of things

Bandana boy

careca wrote:

So he min raised - you min reraised - he min reraised again
so you have a monster - he has a monster.

I'd say min reraise

Not quite min raises bar his first 1

Gholimoli

Bandana boy wrote:

Not quite min raises bar his first 1

i ask you what is your thought process behind it when you decide to min raise?
do you min riase whit your strong hands or weak hands?or do you min riase after you have been minraised and hands to play a part in it?

Bandana boy

Gholimoli wrote:

i ask you what is your thought process behind it when you decide to min raise?
do you min riase whit your strong hands or weak hands?or do you min riase after you have been minraised and hands to play a part in it?

I (hero) never actually minraised

Bandana boy

Gholimoli wrote:

i ask you what is your thought process behind it when you decide to min raise?
do you min riase whit your strong hands or weak hands?or do you min riase after you have been minraised and hands to play a part in it?

but with that I do sometimes min raise on the flop if i want to reprsent a set but actually have a bad draw but feel Villain has very little of the flop.

At the end here I like my hand and do not want to blast him of it I am hoping that he pushs his flush or 8 but now it looks like he is trying to tempt me into a call which is worrying me a little

5starpool

Bandana boy wrote:

I (hero) never actually minraised

You *Irish* minraised though. If you are trying to extract maximum value from a hand then a minraise is not much good to you. I think this is a situation where you have to believe you are ahead, and given some other dodgy plays by him there is no reason to believe he is trying to get clever, even though he did check the nuts on hand 1 you posted I suppose.

Make it 75 or so to play now.

Gholimoli

Bandana boy wrote:

but with that I do sometimes min raise on the flop if i want to reprsent a set but actually have a bad draw but feel Villain has very little of the flop.

At the end here I like my hand and do not want to blast him of it I am hoping that he pushs his flush or 8 but now it looks like he is trying to tempt me into a call which is worrying me a little

"I raise on button to 3 with 8ts Villain min raises me to 6 i make it 12 to play "
this is a min raise.

also you said sometimes you min raise when you want to represent a set.
this means that you think people should min raise with a set so if you min raise it will be read as a set.
this is very bad way of thinking.
this may sound obviouse but ut so many people get it wrong for some reason that i cant understand.
you should want to play big pots with your big hands and small pots with your small hands.
the way you play a big hand is by making it big your self and the way you do this is by raising big to build the pot.
a set is a big hand that you should want to play a big pot with .min rasing with it does not get you there.

also if you feel some one is weak on the flop and you want to get them off the hand ,which do you feet has a higher % of succeeding in getting people to fold their weak hands,a big raise or a small raise?
if you feel villain has little of the flop and you want to move him off his hand,which do you think is more effective a little raise or a big raise?

Bandana boy

Gholimoli wrote:

"I raise on button to 3 with 8ts Villain min raises me to 6 i make it 12 to play "
this is a min raise.

also you said sometimes you min raise when you want to represent a set.
this means that you think people should min raise with a set so if you min raise it will be read as a set.
this is very bad way of thinking.
this may sound obviouse but ut so many people get it wrong for some reason that i cant understand.
you should want to play big pots with your big hands and small pots with your small hands.
the way you play a big hand is by making it big your self and the way you do this is by raising big to build the pot.
a set is a big hand that you should want to play a big pot with .min rasing with it does not get you there.

also if you feel some one is weak on the flop and you want to get them off the hand ,which do you feet has a higher % of succeeding in getting people to fold their weak hands,a big raise or a small raise?
if you feel villain has little of the flop and you want to move him off his hand,which do you think is more effective a little raise or a big raise?

I am probably being a little pedantic here
but 3-6-12 is not a min raise 3-6-9 is but in the spirit i will take your point

I am not saying that i min raise with sets on the flop but a lot of people do and min raise is often seen as set/trips or AA especially at .5-1 and 1-2 so sometimes i will do it on say 88T with 69 as AX and PP smaller than 8 tend to go away

I personally bash the pot with a set(not trips) as i think bash looks like a draw/steal at these limits (again depends on the player)

I like your point on small vs big ,action vs no action but i genuinely believe that a lot of players will fold to a small bet that wont fold to a big and i have the benefit of not pot committing myself or the player before the turn

Bandana boy

Gholimoli wrote:

"
also you said sometimes you min raise when you want to represent a set.
this means that you think people should min raise with a set so

No it means i think a lot of people play sets this way and recognise this play as having as set.

Gholimoli

Bandana boy wrote:

No it means i think a lot of people play sets this way and recognise this play as having as set.

Im not trying to be smart or anything but you say here you min raise with bad draws trying to represent a set.
Then you said you don’t do it cuz you think it’s the correct play but you do it because ppl read it as a set.
Then on this hand you are min raising your strong hand.

“Checked to me i bet 3
SB fold BB raises to 6
I make it 12 and he raises to 24”

if you do things this way you will get use to it and they will hurt you big time when you move up in levels.if ppl will call you with your big bets and will fold to your small bets why are you betting small with a boat here?
You either think your beat or you think you have him beat.if it’s the former then either fold or call and if it’s the latter raise him big especially if he will call you.

Also what you say about not wanting to blow him off does not apply.
The thinking that “if I bet small with my big hand he may call but he will prob fold if I bet big “ is flawed.
You should think of every bet in terms of expectation.
If the pot 100 and say you have a very strong hand ,and you think there is a 80% he will call a $20 bet but only 30% he may call a $80 bet which do you think is better?

careca

ok forgetting about all the 'min' raises, he has checked on all 3 streets, would he really risk this with the nuts. If so then he has played it really badly, especially considering that you checked behind on a recent hand.

I cant even see him doing it with the bare 8 so I reckon you're ahead.

Bandana boy

Gholimoli wrote:

“Checked to me i bet 3
SB fold BB raises to 6
I make it 12 and he raises to 24”

QUOTE]

okay i make it pot instead of raising pot (which is not a min raise ) but i get that you want me to raise more when he min raises me and i mostly agree with you

He pops back at me its call or bet
And it looks like the majority say bet and the majority of them is bet bigger than the current pot

Are we not worried about what hands can re-raise twice and call a bigger than pot bet and still be behind bottom set even if he is one of the biggest donkeys I have ever seen.
Remeber this was a $3 pot 30 seconds ago

El Stuntman

Gholi, I think you may be becoming the best poster on here for 'deep' analysis of strategy (despite your aversion to capital letters/punctuation/spelling ) and it seems like you have taken a big leap forward in your game in the recent past.

Are you now playing full time or what has caused this big jump? (mainly want to know because I seem to be stuck and am wondering how make a similar leap forward)

and how would you have played this hand?

Bandana boy

Gholimoli wrote:

If the pot 100 and say you have a very strong hand ,and you think there is a 80% he will call a $20 bet but only 30% he may call a $80 bet which do you think is better?

Assuming we want a caller with our strong hand long term strategy is to bet the $80 but i think this is probably not a realistic situation

Gholimoli

Bandana boy wrote:

Assuming we want a caller with our strong hand long term strategy is to bet the $80 but i think this is probably not a realistic situation

Why is this not realistic situation?
When your thinking of betting with the nuts on the river (or near nuts) you should not be thinking “well what is the maximum amount I think he will call…” this is wrong.
As I said you should be thinking in terms of expectations and how to maximize it.
Again if the pot is $100 and you bet the min amount here for example say its $6 ,your opponent will prob call nearly 100% on the time. and if you bet 60 he may only call 30% of the time but in terms of EV

Example one:
$6(your bet)x100%(the frequency which you will get called) =$6
Example 2:
$60(your bet)x30%(the frequency you will get paid)=$18
as you can see even though the $60 bet gets called a lot less but has better exception and that’s why it’s the better option.

Now about the hand it self, the reason why should bet and bet big (even going all in if needs be) is not because your certain you have the best hand or there is not a chance that he could have the best hand. the reason is on average he will would be betting here with worse hands than yours and given the way the hand was played out (him checking on multiple streets ) it looks like a flush more than anything else.

Gholimoli

El Stuntman wrote:

Gholi, I think you may be becoming the best poster on here for 'deep' analysis of strategy (despite your aversion to capital letters/punctuation/spelling ) and it seems like you have taken a big leap forward in your game in the recent past.

Are you now playing full time or what has caused this big jump? (mainly want to know because I seem to be stuck and am wondering how make a similar leap forward)

and how would you have played this hand?

wow,thanksfor the vote of confidence man and no im not playing full time and im meant to be changing a firewall rule as i type this..:o
i think the hand was an easy one to play to be honest.
first of all i would not opne limp on the button with 33.there is just too much of a chance you can take the blinds and by limping your giving up on that.
so i would raise it 4BB.
on the flop depending on the player i would prob fold if it there was a bet and would most prob bet if it was chekced to me.
i would expect my flop bet to take the pot there good % of the time.
if my flop bet was called i would fold the turn if there was a bet(depending on its size) and would check behind if it was checked to me.
on the river when i filled up i would reriase any bet big time or i would make a pot sized bet and i would feel comfortable playing it for my stack.

El Stuntman

Gholimoli wrote:

wow,thanksfor the vote of confidence man and no im not playing full time and im meant to be changing a firewall rule as i type this..:o
i think the hand was an easy one to play to be honest.
first of all i would not opne limp on the button with 33.there is just too much of a chance you can take the blinds and by limping your giving up on that.
so i would raise it 4BB.
on the flop depending on the player i would prob fold if it there was a bet and would most prob bet if it was chekced to me.
i would expect my flop bet to take the pot there good % of the time.
if my flop bet was called i would fold the turn if there was a bet(depending on its size) and would check behind if it was checked to me.
on the river when i filled up i would reriase any bet big time or i would make a pot sized bet and i would feel comfortable playing it for my stack.

yeah the hand analysis was the least interesting part of where I was hoping you might go!

do you feel you've moved ahead with your game a lot in the last few months - looks like it from here? and if yes, what caused this?

you don't have to answer, just curious to know if you feel like sharing

Bandana boy

In this situation raising even with postion is a mistake
From the first two hands you can see the guy is a calling station so i am not taking down blinds with a postion raise ,we have tried this before
So i raise we are playing a hand and not many flops are nice for 33

but what i can do is play my 33 for set value and i will most likely get paid
I am 100% convinced limp is right move here

Now i have hit my hand on the river and a large pot is devolping
I will take your comments on my initial reraise was poor but !

Now it is not about wether or not he sometimes has a worse hand in this postion than my bottom set but about wether he will call a large bet with a worse hand

While he is no doubt a complete moron can he really reraise twice and then call a lage bet with air
i think not
With a flush surely he call my last raise with a non nut flush no re raise
Maybe with nut flush he might be happy to get chips in
and trips with ace kicker he is probably bad enough to call but i am not sure
he calls of his stack at this point

I know i would have been much happier if he had pushed my reraise as i would have called in a heartbeat

but do i continue to ignore how much he likes his hand ?

Gholimoli

El Stuntman wrote:

yeah the hand analysis was the least interesting part of where I was hoping you might go!

do you feel you've moved ahead with your game a lot in the last few months - looks like it from here? and if yes, what caused this?

you don't have to answer, just curious to know if you feel like sharing

indeed i do feel like ive gotten better.
to be honest with you i use only play tounry games for ages.
now even though i used to read alot of books and sh1t but becuase alot of the concepts just didnt come into tourny play they just didnt click.
i think NL is best played and certainly most interesting when deep stacked.
unfortunetly in tounrneys you hardly ever have chance of playing deep stack poker.when your not deep stacked then your mistakes and your lack of knowledge does not matter as much as if you were deep stacked.
thats why you can have success playing tourneys yet not really know much about the game or be avrage at best.
ive recently been playing mostly cash games which is much deeper play than tounrney .thats why you have to look for your mistakes and fix them .
so i think that has had alot to do with it.

careca

What happened here bandana ??

Gholimoli

Bandana boy wrote:

In this situation raising even with postion is a mistake
From the first two hands you can see the guy is a calling station so i am not taking down blinds with a postion raise ,we have tried this before
So i raise we are playing a hand and not many flops are nice for 33

but what i can do is play my 33 for set value and i will most likely get paid
I am 100% convinced limp is right move here

Now i have hit my hand on the river and a large pot is devolping
I will take your comments on my initial reraise was poor but !

Now it is not about wether or not he sometimes has a worse hand in this postion than my bottom set but about wether he will call a large bet with a worse hand

While he is no doubt a complete moron can he really reraise twice and then call a lage bet with air
i think not
With a flush surely he call my last raise with a non nut flush no re raise
Maybe with nut flush he might be happy to get chips in
and trips with ace kicker he is probably bad enough to call but i am not sure
he calls of his stack at this point

I know i would have been much happier if he had pushed my reraise as i would have called in a heartbeat

but do i continue to ignore how much he likes his hand ?

Bananda
Your not getting what I said about the raise and your reasons for not raising are wrong.
First of all you say you want to play your 33 for set value.
So say you get your set on the flop then what?
Say the board comes AK3 ,or AT3,or KJ3 .do you think you can get any one stacked on that board in unraised pot ? The answer is no (most often ) .the pot is only 3BB and you bet 1.5 to 2BB no body would really care to contest it and they will just give you credit for the high card and let it go.
Now say you raise the pot to 3BB or 4BB pre flop.if you don’t get called then good for you cuz you have taken the blinds.
If you get called and then flop your set ,the pot is about 6 or 8BB then you can bet about 5 BB or around that and ppl would feel its worth contesting the pot and chasing after it.if you don’t get called you have won 8BB and if you do get called the pot is now 16 to 18BB.
You see how you created a big pot with your big hands. this is where set value comes and implied odds comes in to account.
Blinds have a completely random hand as far as your concerned. most random hands are crap hands and ppl are willing to let them go. why do you want to give them a free shot to see the flop.if you do this you’re the one playing bad and you have allowed them to play almost perfect against you by letting see the flop for free.
If you don’t feel your 33 is any good to play then you should just drop it but don’t limp with it.

Marq

Gholimoli wrote:

When your thinking of betting with the nuts on the river (or near nuts) you should not be thinking “well what is the maximum amount I think he will call…” this is wrong.
As I said you should be thinking in terms of expectations and how to maximize it.

These are effectively the same thing.

ps. In many casinos and on some online sites, raising to 3, then 6, then 12 is a succession of minraises. Double the last total bet is usually considered a min-raise. It's a weak-ass way to build a pot, especially when you have T8 and aren't prepared to fire another bullet on the turn.

Gholimoli

Marq wrote:

These are effectively the same thing.

ps. In many casinos and on some online sites, raising to 3, then 6, then 12 is a succession of minraises. Double the last total bet is usually considered a min-raise. It's a weak-ass way to build a pot, especially when you have T8 and aren't prepared to fire another bullet on the turn.

its not at all the same thing.
infact they are very different.

ianmc38

Bandana Boy, open limping the button is one of the worst plays you can make in a cash game. Raise or fold from the button. It doesn't matter whether you're against a calling station or a rock. Open-limping the button is a massive leak and should never be done. You also give the blinds a free flop by doing so.

Marq

You maximise expectation by betting, on a case by case basis, the maximum that you think your opponent will call.

I disagree with concept of giving up immediate equity.

Ste05

Gholimoli wrote:

its not at all the same thing.
infact they are very different.

They basically are, River bets are very player dependant, if you have a fish calling station or a complete rock on the river, do you bet the same amount because in general a pot bet will be called 30% of the time??

No, you pitch your bets to the maximum that you think that particular player will call in the long term. So basically, as Marq says, it's roughly the same thing...

Gholimoli

Ste05 wrote:

They basically

no, you pitch your bets to the maximum that you think that particular player will call in the long term. So basically, as Marq says, it's roughly the same thing...

this is totally wrong.
its not the same thing at all.
your expection is a function of the % that bet will get called and the amount of the bet.

expection=chances of your bet getting called x the amount you bet.
as i said before if your gainst a rock and you think he will call a $10 bet 100% of the time but will call a $100 bet 20% of the time then:

case one:
expection=100%(the chances of your bet being called)x$10(your bet amount)=10


case two:
expection=20%(chances your bet getting called)x($100)=20

as you can see your expection is better in the second case even though your bet will only get called 1/5 as often as it would if you had bet $10.

Bandana boy

G man not sure i like your logic here but anywho result

I flat called and he had 84 beating only 82 as hands that can play here

I still wonder if he calls a raise but i did say he was a really large donkey

Ste05

Gholi, what are you talking about?

You just described exactly what I did. Except you left out the first part of my post. You pitch your bet at a level that maximises your expectation against the type of player you're up against and the situation you find yourself in, apart from the basic maths you outlined you seem to have missed the whole point of what I was talking about.

Here's an example question for you, just say you have the nut flush on the river and you're about 80% sure your opponent has a weaker flush. Now if your against a good solid professional player who has alot of history with you, do you bet the same for them as you would against a complete fish who has been calling huge bets all day with bottom pair??

Are you trying to suggest that you use your 100% for $10 and 20% for $100 on both of these players. :eek:

Unfortunately I feel I have to do a HJ here and say that you are completely wrong here.

peeko

I think when Gholi says:

expection=100%(the chances of your bet being called)x$10(your bet amount)=10

"the chanes of your bet being called" is probably based on the rating he has of the player...

Gholimoli

Ste05 wrote:

Gholi, what are you talking about?

You just described exactly what I did. Except you left out the first part of my post. You pitch your bet at a level that maximises your expectation against the type of player you're up against and the situation you find yourself in, apart from the basic maths you outlined you seem to have missed the whole point of what I was talking about.

Here's an example question for you, just say you have the nut flush on the river and you're about 80% sure your opponent has a weaker flush. Now if your against a good solid professional player who has alot of history with you, do you bet the same for them as you would against a complete fish who has been calling huge bets all day with bottom pair??

Are you trying to suggest that you use your 100% for $10 and 20% for $100 on both of these players. :eek:

Unfortunately I feel I have to do a HJ here and say that you are completely wrong here.

Ste,
The below is a quote from your post:

“you pitch your bets to the maximum that you think that particular player will call in the long term. “

this is totally wrong.
You don’t pitch your bets based on what you think is the max amount your particular opponent will call. This clearly a mistake and I don’t know why you cant see it after me proving with math that it’s a mistake.

Your bets have expectations. in this case (when you have the nuts and you can not be beaten) you expectation is as follows (once again):

EV=chances of you bet getting called x the amount your betting.

Now applying the above to the example you gave:
In either case figuring out the like hood of your bet getting called is only half the equation whether it’s the pro or the calling station and that’s a fact.
Now if you cant understand it don’t say its wrong because its not.

P.S the example I gave about some one calling a $10 bet 100% but calling a 100% bet 20% of the time, was just an example to prove the concept. and yes I would be applying this concept for all my river bets when I have the nuts no matter who im playing against.

Gholimoli

Marq wrote:

You maximise expectation by betting, on a case by case basis, the maximum that you think your opponent will call.

I disagree with concept of giving up immediate equity.

Marq,
betting the maximum amount that you think your opponent will call does not maximize your expectation.
why this so hard to understand.
what does immediate equity mean ?
your not giving up anything here infact the plan is for you to gain more.
if you base your bets on the "max amount that i think my opponent will call" then your giving up alot of value.

ianmc38

Gholimoli wrote:

if you base your bets on the "max amount that i think my opponent will call" then your giving up alot of value.

Surely that's a contradiction? I'm lost!

5starpool

Either you are not explaining yourself very well Gholi or you don't understand the other side. Surely tailoring each bet to the maximum you can realistically extract each time is better. I know what you are saying about long term, but long term does not take into account that each situation is different in terms of perception etc.

And also, I don't think anyone here is advocating a 1/10th pot bet because that is always going to get called. I think it is more in terms of having a good chance of getting called on a 1/2 or 2/3 pot size bet, which can be increased up to a big overbet if the opponent is a suspicious type who always calls overbets etc.

Gholimoli

ianmc38 wrote:

Surely that's a contradiction? I'm lost!

its not Ian.
if "the max amount you think your opponent will call" is $50 and he will call this bet near 100% of the time then you EV for this bet is :

EV=50x100%=$50

now say there is only 1% chances that he will call a $10000 bet .in this case

EV=10000x1%=$100

Now "the max amount you think he will call" is $50 but as you can see if you base you betting amount on that your not maximizing your EV as a $10000 with only 1% chance of getting called has a higher EV.

5starpool

Those are not realistic numbers, and even if you bet an amount that is going to be called 20% (for example) of the time then you need to be in that exact situation 5 times to get called once. Each situation is different, each opponent is different. No one is saying underbet, but when you have a lock hand you want to value bet if that is the appropriate thing to do.

ianmc38

Ah i get you now.

Bp!

Gholimoli wrote:

its not Ian.
if "the max amount you think your opponent will call" is $50 and he will call this bet near 100% of the time then you EV for this bet is :

EV=50x100%=$50

now say there is only 1% chances that he will call a $1000 bet .in this case

EV=10000x1%=$100

Now "the max amount you think he will call" is $50 but as you can see if you base you betting amount on that your not maximizing your EV as a $10000 with only 1% chance of getting called has a higher EV.

Gholi

Firstly no pot size has been mentioned in these examples? These are just random amounts.

I agree with everyone else, of course every hand is different and how much you bet depeneds on so many factors? How much is in the pot? How strong do you think your opponents hand is? Is it wise to bet the river? Are you bluffing etc but by maximising how much you make is askin yourself how much can i extract out of this player in this hand

Are you suggestin that you should bet $1000 into a $50 pot cause in the long run you will make more from this? If so this is crazy talk as you will get a fold nearly all the time and times you do get a call you'll be beat!

Note: I could have taken you up all wrong gholi but from what i got from your posts it doesnt seem logical

Gholimoli

5starpool wrote:

I know what you are saying about long term, but long term does not take into account that each situation is different in terms of perception etc.

Its all about the long term. Individual bets or actions mean nothing .its about a series of repetitive actions which all have a certain expectations and you have to see how you can maximize that expectation.
What Marq says about immediate equity is just wrong.
What does it even mean?

Gholimoli

Bp! wrote:

Gholi

Firstly no pot size has been mentioned in these examples? These are just random amounts.

I agree with everyone else, of course every hand is different and how much you bet depeneds on so many factors? How much is in the pot? How strong do you think your opponents hand is? Is it wise to bet the river? Are you bluffing etc but by maximising how much you make is askin yourself how much can i extract out of this player in this hand

Are you suggestin that you should bet $1000 into a $50 pot cause in the long run you will make more from this? If so this is crazy talk as you will get a fold nearly all the time and times you do get a call you'll be beat!

Note: I could have taken you up all wrong gholi but from what i got from your posts it doesnt seem logical

oh jesus ,
all respected players but cant seem to get this simple concept.
first of all the pot size does not matter here as you have the nuts and i was merely trying to point out the bet size on the river with their respected calling percentages.

secondly you can never get beat when your holding the nuts and if you read my OP i was reffering to betting with nuts on the river becuase if there is a chance that you can get called and be beat then it all changes.
again what im saying only refers to betting with the nuts on the river.

third of all:
"Are you suggestin that you should bet $1000 into a $50 pot cause in the long run you will make more from this? If so this is crazy talk as you will get a fold nearly all the time and times you do get a call you'll be beat!"

no im not suggesting this and this is not what i said and the things that you left out of what i said are the most important part of it.

i said if there is 100% chance that your opponent will call a $50 bet but only 1% chance that he will call a $10,000 bet then you should bet $10,000 becuase its got a HIGHER EXPECTATION.
i dont care if he folds 99% of the time but the 1% that he will call i make more than the 100% times that he will call my $50 bet.
also the times that he calls my $10,000 bet i will not be beat cuz i have the NUTS.

fuzzbox

1000 * .01 = 10
not 100

Gholimoli

5starpool wrote:

Those are not realistic numbers, and even if you bet an amount that is going to be called 20% (for example) of the time then you need to be in that exact situation 5 times to get called once. Each situation is different, each opponent is different. No one is saying underbet, but when you have a lock hand you want to value bet if that is the appropriate thing to do.

Dom,
this is really simple and i really dont understand why ppl dont get it.
your talking about "value bets" here yet you seem to be confused about what it really means.
ofcourse you will be in that exact situation 5 times.hell you will be in that situation 5 mil times .its one long seriese of actions.
when we talk about betting/checking/folding/check raising and which one is a better play we mean which one has a higher expectation and we certainly dont mean that in isolation but we mean it in the long term which is the better play.

Gholimoli

fuzzbox wrote:

1000 * .01 = 10
not 100

Fuzz that was a typo but thanks anyway

Bp!

Gholimoli wrote:

i said if there is 100% chance that your opponent will call a $50 bet but only 1% chance that he will call a $10,000 bet then you should bet $10,000 becuase its got a HIGHER EXPECTATION.
i dont care if he folds 99% of the time but the 1% that he will call i make more than the 100% times that he will call my $50 bet.
also the times that he calls my $10,000 bet i will not be beat cuz i have the NUTS.

So your sayin when you have the nuts you should overbet the pot by approx 200 times what is in it cause "someone will eventually" call this bet?

What if you think they have a lone pair but will be willing to call a pot size bet at most?? and you *know* they will fold to too much pressure, oh lets say a 200 x the pot bet? Are you not losing value here?

Im just confuzzled that you are sayin everyone is wrong on this subject

5starpool

Gholimoli wrote:

Dom,
this is really simple and i really dont understand why ppl dont get it.
your talking about "value bets" here yet you seem to be confused about what it really means.
ofcourse you will be in that exact situation 5 times.hell you will be in that situation 5 mil times .its one long seriese of actions.
when we talk about betting/checking/folding/check raising and which one is a better play we mean which one has a higher expectation and we certainly dont mean that in isolation but we mean it in the long term which is the better play.

You are making less distinctions between situations than me. I get what you are saying, but the maths in this cannot be black and white.

We will have to agree to disagree in this. In theory you are perfectly tight of course, but I am saying the reality does not always reflect the theory.

Gholimoli

Bp! wrote:

So your sayin when you have the nuts you should overbet the pot by approx 200 times what is in it cause "someone will eventually" call this bet?

What if you think they have a lone pair but will be willing to call a pot size bet at most?? and you *know* they will fold to too much pressure, oh lets say a 200 x the pot bet? Are you not losing value here?

Im just confuzzled that you are sayin everyone is wrong on this subject

BP!
your missing the point and your bringing things into the equation that dont blong here at all.
The fact that its 200 time the pot or 2000 time the pot or 2 time the pot has nothing to do with it.
Whether my opponent holds 4 of a kind or just A high has nothing to do with it.

The factors you mentioned above will determine the % (probability) of your $10,000 bet in to a for example $100 pot being called.
What im saying is if that %=1 and my alternative is to bet $50 in to the same $100 pot which I think it will get called 100% and im obviously holding the nuts, I will choose the $10,000 option because its got a higher expectation and so should you.
Do you get it now?