What would you call `value betting` ???

Hi all.

I`m discussing a hand with a guy on this post http://www.cardschat.com/f51/should-...94/#post766522

We have come down to value betting. What would you guys describe as a value bet???

Value Bet: any bet you make that you hope will be called by a worse hand.

Thats what I thought.

If you check the thread AG, you will find he thinks different

This is what I was told was value betting.

I`m not trying to be clever, just want to clarify

No, he doesn't have it wrong, you do. Your advice to shove w KK is a bet that wants to fold other hands, not get called by weaker ones. Similar to your idea that raising w AK is primarily to "thin the field" (also looking for folds).
A value bet is looking for a call.

I can see we are going down different avenues here.

I think a value bet is a bet looking for a call.

You need to look into the full thread to find out why I said push with KK - if he gets called in that hand he is behind. The poster of this thread is asking if he should call an all in. Later in the thread, he says he was raising as a value bet. I said it could not be a value bet if he was concidering folding to a reraise. Am I wrong?

Using the example I give above, I do not think that you would raise with AK at a full table as a value bet - you would be raising with AK to thin the field, in most cases. Less than 4 players, possibly.

above.

I read the thread pretty quickly, but I don't really understand why that hand was posted in the first place, unless it was an attempt to get at a tournament survival vs. +chip EV type discussion (which never materialized fully).

What you are saying is almost what I said.

1) He `value bets` - i.e. he thinks he is ahead.
2) He is then reraised almost all in. He holds top pair in pocket. He can only be behind a set.
3) He is getting about 2.5:1 to call

I'm not sure I get it.

A bet for value hopes to get called. Everyone agrees on this.

What happens after the bet has no bearing on whether or not the bet was for value. Whether the opponent calls, folds or raises all-in does not change the type of the bet.

Conversely, if I go all-in with QJs on a T-9-2 board, and I get called by 87 (a worse hand hoping to hit a straight), my all-in was still a bluff. It doesn't become a value bet just because I was called by a worse hand.

You must read the post to understand the contex this was written in.

Oh Lord, how do I explain!!!

The guy said he made what he called a value bet in the post concerned.

So I said if it is a value bet, u can`t be thinking about folding - My understanding of a value bet is a bet made knowing u have the best hand. Therefore, if you have the best hand why would you fold to a reraise? Unless my understanding of a value bet is incorrect.

Oh lord how do we explain.... read FP's post: a value bet is a bet you make when you think you have the best hand (after all, you can't see your opponents cards, and you can still be making a value bet without the nuts). If someone then raises you, you certainly have to re-evaluate where you stand.

I still don't understand why you are making a big deal out of nothing (if it's just a matter of semantics)...

Because the information you have at the time you believe your hand is best could change with your opponent's future actions.

If you get a loose passive player calling you down to the river vs your top pair, then he goes and check-raises a dry river card, you can now expect to have a hand that loses on average to your opponent's range.

You believed you were going to get a call from a worse hand >%50 before his check-raise, but now with the new information you see he was most likely slowplaying something that has you beat, so you fold.

you keep using the word 'knowing'.

we seldom 'know' anything in poker. your definition is fundamentally flawed.

a value bet doesn't require you to 'know' you're ahead, it merely requires you to assign a range to your opponent and establish that you're beating a lot of hands in that range (and that the range consists of an ample number of hands that we beat but will call our bet).

as a hand progresses, we can often narrow our opponent's range of hands, eliminating from your opponent's range a lot of the weaker hands that we wanted to call us originally.

I asked a simple question for clarification. The question to me is simple, but not to others.

Your origional explination was what I thought was a value bet i.e. extracting the most out of your opponent `knowing` you have the best hand at that time. I`m not saying it is or it is not, I`m asking, thats all.

I take it you mean AG`s definition is flawed? I have not given a definate definition, I have asked if what I said was correct or not.

very well, if you want to nit it up, your assumption is incorrect.

Hmmmm..... A value bet is a bet with what you THINK is the best hand, sized to encourage your opponent(s) to call. I've always thought that a "value bet" was only called as such when performed on the river - but now that may not be the case?

Nit it up?

You mean clarify what you were talking about as I had not given a definition. The only person who had given a devinate definition AG, which was then changed to
Quite a difference, imo.

If the usual suspect didn`t always try to get so arsey when some people ask a simple question for clarification we might get to the point quicker.

umm, what's the difference, seriously.

Glossary of poker terms - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
value bet
A bet made by a player who wants it to be called (as opposed to a bluff or protection bet). This is typically because he has a superior hand that he expects to win at showdown, or a very good draw for which he can increase his pot equity by more than the amount of his bet.

from my understanding a value bet is where you put the maximum amount of chips in the pot where the opponent with call with a worse hand

exactly, exactly, exactly. I am value betting because I CRUSH the range of hands that can play with me based on my bet. You do not have to value bet only the nuts, only a hand that beats the range of hands your opponent could hold. And I definitely wasn't bluffing... I shouldn't have posted the hand, and I explain later why I did - I originally questioned my call because I thought I could have narrowed his range down to a set. That was essentially what I wanted to get out of the responses, whether or not I could have narrowed down my opponents range to only a set based on his re-raise all in. His re-raise did significantly narrow his range of possible holdings, but there are still plenty of other hands he could be pushing with. With further review it still remains the right call, even though I lost! funny concept...

Chuck, I don't know if you saw the thread he is referring to, but I agree with you 100 percent (which means that I can't be playing too badly )

I make a lot of points defending my initial continuation bet, including: "I am betting for value because I know that I am not bluffing, I have the best hand 95 percent of the time (because I beat at least 95 percent of their range.) Poker is a game of incomplete information, and with the information given I have no reason to believe I do not have a hand that crushes my opponents ranges. After he reraises all in, however, I am given more information - the information that this guy did or wants me to believe that he nailed this flop. Here is where I need to re evaluate the hand based on this new information."

Does every really awesome person on this site think that every person is picking at their game???

I simply asked for a definition of a `value bet`, nothing more, nothing less.

As it turns out there seems to be a lot of different definitions.

If, as was my understanding, a value bet was a bet you made knowing you had the best hand, why would you fold to a reraise.

As some people seem to think you can`t ever know if u have the best hand, here is an example.

You hold AA, flop is AA9 - u now have the best hand, u know you have the best hand so you value bet, bet to try to extract as much as you can from your opponent.

If this is not the definition of a value bet so be it, I really don`t care.

This isn't the definition for value bet. The definition of betting with the nuts is not a very useful one, since it happens so rarely.

The reason we talk about "value bets" is to distinguish them from bluffs and semi-bluffs. A bet is (should be) made for a reason, and it's the reason - the intent - that is stated when someone says he made a value bet. E.g., if I have 2-2 on a 9-7-3-T-9 board, and I bet in position. That can be a value bet vs. AK, it can also be a bluff vs. 44-66, A7, etc. What my opponent has doesn't matter, what matters - for the sake of discussing it - is what my intention is when I make the bet.

Do you now see why betting for value and folding to a re-raise aren't mutually exclusive?

You told me earlier that I had to read the thread you were referring to in order to understand the context. I did actually read that thread before even seeing this one, but that thread has no bearing on what a value bet is. And you seem very frustrated that everyone is disagreeing with you, and at some point I think you're going to have to face the reason everyone's disagreeing with you.

In reverse order.

Yes, I`m getting rather darn frustrated because I asked for a definition of a value bet. Instead of people simply telling me they started acting in the way only a few on this site can - like dickheads - oh so clever.

AG said This is not a dig at AG, btw. But, going by what is said in this quote I assumed it meant you basically had the nuts and you wanted a call.

I really can`t be arsed going on and on about this. I now know that a value bet is a bet made thinking you have the best hand. Thats all anyone had to say.

And to your 2nd point, no I was not getting annoyed that people were disagreeing with me. I was getting annoyed because I could not get a straight answer and people were saying my definition was wrong, when in fact I did not give a definition I gave what was my understanding - an understanding I needed clarified.

"People" weren't saying your definition was wrong; Dorkus said it in one post, which you reacted strongly to, and he then retracted it and used "assumption" instead. Re-read the thread from the top and explain to me who's being a dickhead, and why.

You asked for a definition, and you got it in the very first response, you misunderstood what it meant, and a discussion ensued. A discussion that you, not the rest of us, were the one benefiting from. The rest of us were simply trying to explain to you what you were not getting. Since you started the thread, and you're the one who learned something from it, I think it's mighty unfair of you to call the people who tried - and succeeded - in teaching you something, "dickheads."

I'd consider an offering an apology, if I were you.

Ron,

1) Stop bypassing the censor and making me have to edit your posts.

2) FP is right, as he generally is.

So this is what you call a retraction
It would have been a lot easier to say "Sorry, your assumption is incorrect" rather than put in the clever comment "if you want to nit it up"

How would this sound as an appology "Ok, if I must say sorry. Not everyone on this site who has responded to this post is a dickhead?"

Value Bet: any bet you make that you hope will be called by a worse hand.

For example: you have A♣K♠ and the board is A♥3♦7♣ and you bet hoping to get called by a hand such as A♦10♣

1. it's not the nuts, and yet you are still hoping to get called by a worse hand.

2. if you get raised on a dry board such as the above by a very tight post flop player you might re-evaluate if you are best or behind a hand like a set. THIS DOESN'T CHANGE THE FACT THAT YOUR INITIAL BET WAS FOR VALUE.

3. being ahead of your opponents range is enough to bet for value. Often you will here terms like "making a thin value bet"-- meaning that you have only a slight advantage in equity.

4. you don't need to "know" that you are ahead: as pointed out having a term ("value bet") for "betting with the nuts" isn't very useful.

Value betting in my book is when you know you have the winning hand (hopefully the nuts) and betting slightly less to throw the opponent off into reading you, and hoping they call thinking you are just trying to steal the pot.

Then you, like the OP, would be wrong.

Thanks for the clarification.

A good example of a thin river value-bet:

http://www.notedpokerauthority.com/q...value-bet.html