Betting, the Bwammo way

I bet a lot...way more than the typical profitable player would suggest or even imagine possible. Not only am I betting incredibly frequently, but my sizing is usually far less than that of what is considered standard. I promise I'm not insane though! There's certainly a method to my madness, but in order to understand this we've got to break down exactly what a bet is.

Betting in poker is often misunderstood. People are often betting too much or too little because they are not sure as to what their bets are supposed to mean. In general, a bet is a proposition that something either will or will not occur. Sports bettors are betting with or against the chances their team will cover the spread. Lottery bettors are betting against the minute chance that they will strike it rich. Craps players are betting with or against the chances that their desired combination of dice will show. In poker terms it's usually seen as the chances someone who is behind will catch up, but it can mean so much more.

In my world, bets can be used as a weapon against someone seeing another card, regardless of if we're ahead. In essence, bets are merely draws for me. For example, if I bet 20% of the pot on a bluff, I'm betting against the chances that my opponent stays in to see the next card (here I'd need a 20% success-rate on this bet to break even). The same theory applies to raising. There are certainly other considerations to make, such as how it affects our stack size and the fact that even if we're called we still have a chance to win by either hitting our hand or taking the pot down with another bet. The point I'm getting at is, in poker, we have definite success-rates (you can use Holdem Manager and other tools to create filters that will disclose this information), and if we know how often something is going to happen, we can properly bet against it. Just as we know we must be getting better than 2:1 to make a call for a flush/straight draw due to our 1/3 chances of hitting...betting to create folds and other profitable situations follows the same logic.

My apologies for the briefness of this thread as I'm out of time, am heading to the beach in San Diego (for those who don't know, I'm on a long distance road trip) so if anyone has any questions, don't hesitate to ask. I will respond in my typical long-winded manner

Every Bwammo post is like gold dust. Read and digested
I'll read it again tomorrow though, just in case.

In responce to the HEM filters. Are you looking at specific opponants or just a general filters against all players. Like let's say we are c-betting and we get called with x %. Are you suggesting we look at that number and adjust our bet sizing to the pot accordingly?

Like for example, we c-bet 70% of the time and we get called 30% of the time on average, I assume we should be betting slightly over 30% of the pot in that case?

Am i way off the mark here, or should I be thinking about more specific examples?

Good post. I think there is much more to be said so hopefully you can add more down the road...literally

Yes that's exactly what I'm saying, well a portion of it (yes there are way more specific things we can break down this way). Essentially every single situation in which you typically want to bet or raise someone but are afraid that you won't get the results you want...the only way to truly know is by experimentation and then checking the actual long term results. While this sort of thing is merely creating an average, and not specific, we can't just go willy nilly betting out the same amount expecting every player to react the same. However, we can adjust our averages based on any player reads we may have (such as HEM stats, sharkscope information, or just something we've seen this player do in the past). For instance if you decide somewhere around 35% of the pot is your happy medium based on how often you c-bet and how often you're called, and are then playing against a player with 32% vpip and 12% pfr (over a large enough sample to make the read accurate). This type of player is usually a bit more likely to want to peel off a card for cheap as they've shown us time and time again when in preflop situations. If he's more likely to call we should either adjust the % of the times we c-bet at him on the flop, or increase the amount we c-bet at him. Either adjustment can be correct, the one we make should depend upon how badly we need the chips we're risking on a c-bet.

*edit*

There's a thread from a few months ago that I described something along these lines, had to do with a check/minraise situation, I'm trying to find it but if I can't I'll just recreate the knowledge

Makes perfect sense to me. So we're basically just working out what the lowest amount is we can c-bet (or whatever) against random opponants at a particular level.

One query, wouldn't lowering our "standard" bet size make random opponants float us more often? (again, it's trial and error i guess to find the right balance.)

I've never really looked into specific bet sizes, i generally bet based on board texture and how weak/strong i feel my opponants range hit that type of board and what i want the bet to achieve (induce or get folds or whatever).

Thanks for feedback!

Not necessarily the lowest amount...but the optimal amount (the most our opponents will put in without inflating the pot beyond our control). Many players bet opponents out of the pot because they fear the top of the possible range rather than fearing the average range. While sometimes that'll create sticky as hell situations, if we're skilled enough postflop we should be able to navigate through them.

Having opponents float us is a profitable proposition so long as you do not let them bluff you Sometimes avoiding a bluff means making a bet at the right time, other times it means checking at the right time (depending upon position)...but if we're getting our opponents to put money into a pot where they have little to no chance of actually improving their hand, that's a win in my books.

Bet sizing has become an obsession of mine for the last year or so of poker, but yeah it took me a long time to realize the value in getting precise about it. Honestly, playing around in HEM was a HUGE help. The precision in filters that program offers is stunning...although I definitely could use a couple other options from time to time hehe.

For those who have the time, money, and skill to do some trial and error, as you put it, you can learn some crazy things about the world of poker. Many of the books and articles that have been written over the last 10+ years have been aimed at playing proper poker, when in reality the poker world has changed completely and proper poker isn't the #1 option anymore. Poker is firstly about playing against people not about playing our cards...so now that the game has evolved, so too should our concept of what proper poker is.

---

I never did find that post in which I talk about check/minraising, sad panda.

Great thread btw, why this isn't getting more love is beyond me

Gettin mine....:-)

(and am subscribed now as well)

Some ideas ITT that I need to think about for a while.

In the stakes I'm playing atm (micro-low MTTs) my average opponents' float/call c-bet % is rather 40% (my cbet % is slightly below 70%).

Since black friday I see a change in the player spread (small sample obv) in the MTTs I'm playing

(mostly on carbon atm) going from mostly loose/passive to LAG, crazily betting/floating any possible non-nut draw / any pair.

I'm working on adjusting to that.

Yeah betting small on the flop to increase the amount of money they are putting in, but keeping the pot size within reason, and then check/raising them very small on the turn is an INCREDIBLY effective tactic against the type of opponent who will float and wait for weakness to bet. *edit* Typically in this type of situation, we're c-betting around 25-35% of the pot at most (sometimes I go smaller just to screw with people)...then when we check to them on the turn they will fire a smaller amount because it's, in effect, a probe bet to them...to put it into mathematical perspective we would be raising 2.5x preflop, getting one caller from position, and the blinds fold around (a total pot size of 6.5xBB), which then we c-bet roughly 2.5xBB again and get called again (a total pot size of 11.5xBB)...so when we check to him and he bets around 3xBB (total pot size of 14.5xBB), a minimum check/raise would be creating roughly a 5:1 draw on whether or not he will lay his hand down right now. That doesn't include the chances that he flats and we actually pick up enough to beat him on the river. That doesn't include the chances he will flat and we will actually find a good river to bluff him off his hand.*edit*

There usually aren't many of those types of players on average, but we certainly need to know how to deal with them when we encounter one, or they will constantly beat us simply by having position. Along those same lines, there are opponents who will bet at you if you didn't c-bet on the flop, and you can do a small check/raise there as well. And keeping this in line with the topic of this thread, you can find out your success-rates on these types of moves by simply using HEM filters after we've given ourselves a decent sample size. Once we know the success-rates, we can determine if the amount we're check/raising is proper and if we need to make any further adjustments.

Typically it's best to not change your perspective on the game until you've had a larger sample size, in fact it's relatively dangerous to do so too quickly.

Are you new to carbon since black friday or were you there prior to the incidents?

It was just a feeling I had during the last days by observing the players I played against.

The sample size is far too small to show in HEM yet so I won't change much (as you suggested).

I played on carbon before(#3 after FT/PS) but with alot of new players from the US moving to carbon I guess I'll be playing more there now.

I just seen it. Got love here, just nothing more to add really. Really like and agree with most of Bwammos posts. Not to sound like an ass kisser, but it seems his approach toward poker is the way it should be. Sure you will make most of your money off fish, but as this poker world evolves, you need to also get an edge over the regs at your level. Bwammo seems to do this well and it's a pleasure to have him at this forum.

How's that for some love.

I think everyone got distracted with the recent events - Jimmy is the first US member to post in this thread. What we should be doing with all of this extra time is soaking all this kind of good stuff up!!

^^^ Yes indeed. I will continue to post as long as I can keep my sanity. Just because we are getting screwed out of playing "real" online poker right now is no reason to quit posting and learning.

If any of us plans on returning to online poker after all this BS has past, we have to be able to keep up with the rest of the poker world if we want to be competitive when we return. Believe me I learned this the hard way after taking nearly two years off. Everyone got better except for me. Took a long time just to "catch up."

Even if my local games and B&M were the only way to go, I love poker so much that I will strive to keep learning. Poker is nothing like riding a bicycle. You can't just pick up were you left off and remember how to ride. If we quit now and want to play in the future, it could be very -EV and that is never good unless you are my opponent.

Awesome advice, thanks. I've been experimenting with differant lines like above and they are working a lot more than i ever anticipated they would. I figured check/min-raising fish would never work, but it really is effective!! ( i kind of just assumed they would just snap call without thinking about it, but i guess these days even fish know that check/raising is a sign of strength)

I've also made a play of my own. Against loose regulars who are relentlessly raising buttons against me, i've started trying out flat calling OOP. then check/raising a super high % of flops. I'm doing this instead of just 3betting them, as i'm finding my small 3bets are getting called more often than not (which isn't an issue, but postflop gets a little tricky). But the flop check/raise is basically spending the same as a larger 3bet with much much better results. Since players are used to raising button and being 3bet, they kind of know how to deal with it for the most part, so i don't feel there is much of an edge to be gained by doing so.

Just reviewing some HU play, i'm finding these hands hilarious. It's like clockwork, I have pretty much no decent aces that would be worth C/R in my range here. Most of these players are capable of raising preflop with aces, so i know they don't have one, easy money, and it costs nothing to make these plays.

That last hand just cracks me up, that small inducing bet gets so many people to invest in bluffing me off hands that i can't be bluffed off of, it's hilarious

(I feel like i owe you a coaching session Cody, might be on the cards soon!)


PokerStars Converter Tool from FlopTurnRiver.com

Hero (BB) (t3290)
SB (t5710)

Hero's M: 9.40

Preflop: Hero is BB with 3, 2
SB calls t100, Hero checks

Flop: (t450) 4, K, A (2 players)
Hero checks, SB bets t200, Hero raises to t420, 1 fold

Total pot: t850



PokerStars No-Limit Hold'em, 13 Tournament, 100/200 Blinds (2 handed) - PokerStars Converter Tool from FlopTurnRiver.com

Hero (BB) (t5900)
SB (t3100)

Hero's M: 19.67

Preflop: Hero is BB with J, 2
SB calls t100, Hero checks

Flop: (t400) 8, A, 8 (2 players)
Hero checks, SB bets t200, Hero raises to t450, 1 fold

Total pot: t800



PokerStars No-Limit Hold'em, 6.5 Tournament, 100/200 Blinds 25 Ante (2 handed) - PokerStars Converter Tool from FlopTurnRiver.com

Hero (BB) (t4560)
SB (t4440)

Hero's M: 13.03

Preflop: Hero is BB with 2, J
SB calls t100, Hero checks

Flop: (t450) 3, 7, A (2 players)
Hero checks, SB bets t200, Hero raises to t500, 1 fold

Total pot: t850


PokerStars No-Limit Hold'em, 6.5 Tournament, 50/100 Blinds (2 handed) - PokerStars Converter Tool from FlopTurnRiver.com

Hero (BB) (t2285)
SB (t6715)

Hero's M: 15.23

Preflop: Hero is BB with K, Q
SB calls t50, Hero checks

Flop: (t200) 4, 8, A (2 players)
Hero checks, SB bets t100, Hero raises to t250, SB calls t150

Turn: (t700) J (2 players)
Hero checks, SB checks

River: (t700) 2 (2 players)
Hero bets t225, SB raises to t800, Hero raises to t1375, 1 fold

Total pot: t2300

Yeah this can be a pretty effective tactic. Also...without revealing too much about my private strategy (the type of tips i usually charge for lol)...you can reraise preflop knowing they will call you and there's a very...simple...way to deal with it postflop

As for the checkraising working against bad players...typically bad players are willing to give their hands up relatively easily if they have a great reason to be deathly afraid of what you possess.

Yeah, my standard is to usually just 3bet and c-bet the flop. But I think that people have seen it all before and don't neccessarily give it as much credit as they used too. And against regs i guess it's good to mix play up a little bit (even though i suspect many of them don't really pay attention). I just feel like regs are so used to seeing 3bet action and are used to dealing with it, for the most part they will just fold pre or shove the top of their ranges, if they do call, they tend to fight over the flop more than i encountered in the past.

So yeah, i'll be mixing it up between the two plays and checking results to see how it's going.

Small reraises and small bets are...well lets just say...scary

Very true.

Would you take a similar strategy into a deep stacked event?
Would we have to charge them a little bit more due to the excessive implied odds?
If players don't know about implied odds, can we charge them a little extra just because they can pay it, meaning more value for us?

Only skimmed the first post because I'm lazy (good stuff though) but this quoted part jumped out to me since it's misleading.

The equation for finding the minimum % of folds needed for a play to be immediately profitable is bet/(bet+pot). 100 chip pot, we make a bet of 50. That's 50/(100+150) = 1/3 = %33 folds needed on average to show an immediate profit.

%20 of pot would be 20/(100+20 = 20/120 = 1/6 = ~%17.

I just realized you could have been rounding off, but the wording implies that the % of the pot you're betting is the same as the min % of folds needed, which it isn't.

Yeah totally true chuck I was just over simplifying it. (more specifically I was adjusting for the difference between breaking even and profiting, 17% would be break even, 20% is profit in a cash game, 20% is closer to break even in a tournament due to stack dynamics)

And yes wiz we always need to adjust bet sizing based on the implied odds we are giving our opponents.

this a really interesting strategy...i've never thought about it like this but when i play live this is kind of the strategy i employ, not so much online....i just feel like floaters always stick around online (at least at the low-mid levels,) but in live play its easier to get people off draws while still maximizing profit if they do chase and miss...im definitely looking forward to reading up on ur strategy more tho, im happy i opened this thread

yeah people definitely float like mad online, but that shouldn't detour you from small bets...in fact it should encourage it. Getting people to pay extra when they are substantially behind is a profitable move hehe

Lots of ♥ from me too...reading and absorbing with a fair amount of awe.

Lol well thanks for the love everyone, but the pleasure is all mine, absorb away

People in casino tend to play hit or fold a lot more so a smaller flop bet is always better. As little as 20% should get them off a whiffed hand. Online floating is huge, in micros people thing their ace high is still good on a 4567monotone board. lol