How to get value, Bwammo Style (with examples!)

Soooooooooo, want to know how I build my stack so consistently? I get value in the weirdest places! It's really a quite simple concept that often gets lost when people enter into the tournament world. Many players forget that in order to actually win chips they need to be paid off by worse hands on a regular basis. Chipping up by getting folds is certainly possible, but nearly every pot will be small and the ones that aren't are going to cost a lot to win.

Here I've gathered up a few hands that I played recently to help describe just exactly what I mean by value. I believe these are from Rush On-Demand tournaments as that's what I've been playing primarily lately.

http://www.pokerhand.org/?6011828

I didn't make him fold preflop, I let him hang around so he has the chance to donate more chips to my cause. Notice how small I am betting in relation to the pot size? I'm also betting very small in relation to our stack sizes. By doing this I'm greatly increasing the chances that this player will take a chance and see if he can strike it rich. I'm also minimizing the amount I must invest because I'm not at all certain that my hand is the best one.

http://www.pokerhand.org/?6011862

Again, I raised small preflop allowing my opponent to stay in the pot, I bet small the whole way allowing him to give me whatever chips he wishes, and I was balancing my certainty that I was substantially ahead of his hand(at most he had 5 outs in my mind).

http://www.pokerhand.org/?6006360

Another small raise preflop, which increases the likelihood of being flatted by a player in the blinds. Another small bet on the flop(chose to minbet in this spot) that let him put in money into a pot where he was drawing to 5 outs. On the turn I increased my bet size slightly to force potential flush draws and straight draws to pay slightly more and charge them the proper amounts while still allowing players with non draw hands that are worse than mind to stay in the pot. On the river I bet small again to get those really bad hands that stayed in there with me to pay me just a tiny bit more, while still minimizing the amount I might lose if this player check/raised me on the flush card.

They key to achieving proper value is by putting your opponent on the proper hand range and betting against the chances of it beating you on the next street. Someone with 5 outs on the flop is typically going to win around 20% of the time if you let them reach the river, but they will only improve their hand around 11% of the time on the turn. This means in order to charge a hand like this the proper amount, anything over 11% of the pot size is making it expensive on them. This means bets that are around 1/4 of the pot, while they seem really small and seem to be allowing our opponents to beat us more often, we are going to be winning extra chips roughly 89% of the time we allow them to pay less than a "standard" bet. Exciting stuff!

What a cool concept. However, I do have some additional questions for you.

First, does this only apply to Rush tourneys where you are at different tables every hand?

Second, what would you do if Villain raised? Call or shove?

Thanks,
David

very good post obv

I already know that you have a different take on these situations than most, lol, but I feel like I still have to ask - let's say in the first hand, you bet ~t1200 instead of t600. Let's say the ~t600 gets called around 80% of the time and the t1200 gets called 50% of the time. The t1200 bet obviously shows more profit in the long run, yes? So what makes you want to go for the smaller bet instead? Is it because you think the value you can collect on later streets makes up for the loss in immediate profit?

Yeah this applies across all tournament structures and games. Sizing and timing might be different in other games but the theory still applies.

Of which hand do you speak?

While betting larger does increase our overall chip profit, I've found it's better to win more often than more at once. In your example of 80% and 50%, 8 out of every 10 tournaments I'm going to increase my stack size compared to 5 out of every 10 tournaments increasing your stack size. The chip difference between 675 and 1200 is pretty tiny, which means it won't really affect our stack very much. Honestly even just the 675 pickup in this particular situation (because I was so deep) wasn't a huge help to my stack, but there's another reason for betting smaller. I couldn't be completely sure I was vastly ahead so if he came back at me at any point I'd prefer the pot to be smaller and cause his action to be smaller.

Wonderful thread.

On a sort of tangent to CJ's question: would you make these same style bets if this were a FR 100bb cash game?

I mean...it seems like, in a vacuum, there could be more +EV plays than the ones you made. Those bigger plays wouldn't be as consistent though (CJ's 80% call rate vs. 50%). I guess what I'm really asking: is the value of more consistently chipping up with these smaller bets something you'd say is typically underestimated?

edit: damnit! you were posting as I wrote this

I'm liking this. Nothing intelligent to add, just basking in the goodness...

Hehe yeah if this were a cash game there's no way in hell I'm going to be betting like this. There would be much more at stake in that hand since I'd be 100bb deep, so I would be less likely to want to let him improve his hand. Also...100bb deep players can make calls of bets that are much larger than the ones I was making with the same crappy hands...then you toss in the cash game factor where EVERYONE is more likely to play like it's the lottery rather than like they actually want to win, and it'd almost be suicidal to bet like I do in tournaments in some instances.

To clarify my second question:

In all three instances Villain called every street (even with the dueces??).

When I play in tournaments and a player underbets the pot (a bet of less than 1/4 pot) I usually interpret it as weakness and raise them even if I am on a draw. What would you do in those situations where you have made top pair with a bad kicker (the A 8), are betting with middle pair (The Jack), etc. and are betting for value; but Villain raises you instead of calls?

Nice strat Bwammo, will have to give it a run!

I have a feeling this strategy works more effectively if you're a good player (such as Bwam).
For myself my post-flop skills are much weaker, and so when scare cards hit i'm more likely to run a mile so betting low is just like giving them easy ways to win the pot off me.

How do you know a scare card has or hasn't helped the opponent? (like when the flush card hit in one of your examples).

I am having a hard time with the first hand. The other two hands I think are great but this hand and your explanation are confusing to me.

With A8 it says that you re-raised him pre-flop (min raise) after he had already raised. But in your explanation you say, "didn't make him fold preflop, I let him hang around so he has the chance to donate more chips to my cause."

How did you not make him not fold? By min raising?

Also since he raised, what range are you putting him on here to be able to re-raise with A8? It must be pretty bad if you are "letting him hang around" but only holding A 8.

I also could not figure out what position you were in on this hand re-player.

I like the turn check and value bet on the river because the check on the turn is great to induce a call on the river, since it looks like you are trying to take it...but the preflop play is killing me.

By underbetting the pot I'm also decreasing the amount that the typical opponent will raise to, which makes it easier for me to potentially call him on his crap if I think something is askew. Also, in this particular situation (the A8 hand), I have reraised preflop...and the amount I reraised was small (the minimum)...so it's very difficult for most players to avoid putting me on a very good hand. Even the players who do not possess the skill of hand reading will have a definite sense of "dang, this guy must be packing some heat to be doing this" after my preflop actions. The small bet on the flop is often another indicator for most players of something a good hand would do. A trickery of the mind, so to speak This makes it more difficult for the player to check/raise, on average.

In any situation where I'm facing a raise, I must base all decisions upon my reads. If I have no reads, then it comes down to math. Simply what are the chances that this guy isn't lying to me with this raise?

If I had wanted him to fold preflop I would have chosen to reraise larger...something that would potentially put a strain on my opponent's stack, probably in the neighborhood of around 2200-2600. The smaller raise is something he is usually going to call, and I'm aware of it going into the situation. I want to see a flop with very deep stacks with the initiative in the pot and position against an inferior player. And yes, I am not giving the original raiser much credit, that is the idea behind the play If I thought he had something, I should just be folding A8 because it will only get me in trouble. If I think the raiser is going to be doing that pretty often when I'm given some piece of information that makes me lean in that direction, then position plays a greater part in the hand as does the fact that I have a top 15% holding. Mix in some deep stacks and a general knowledge that the average opponent is still learning how to improve their game (at best), now we've got a recipe for a nice little postflop situation.

Oh, and I was on the button in this hand, the raiser was in the CO.

If postflop is an issue then certainly you should avoid going there in situations where you cannot afford to be there. However, there's a dirty little secret about poker...if you do not put yourself in many postflop situations, you will not improve in postflop situations In my opinion, experimentation and experience is sometimes the only way to truly learn.

How do I know the scare cards haven't helped? I don't. I only know the amount of possible holdings I give my opponent credit for and how many of them are helped by that card.

Villain defends w Q2o? rush-a-ments ftw!

thanks, makes a lot more sense now

That's exactly what i believe in !!!

I know this isn't the point of the thread, but I'm trying to figure out why there are only 5 outs in the 2nd and 3rd examples. I always figure on 9 outs when 2-of-a-suit flop (unless I have one) -- and so often my bets get called with Ax suited.

Great article though -- thanks!

Assuming our opponents have a flush draw without any information that proves our assumption correct is typically a bad practice. Reasons as to why we cannot just assume flush draws are...suited hands are less common than offsuit hands, there are four different suits possible (so even if they have a suited hand, the odds of it being the same suit on the flop are very low), and, most importantly, suited cards only flop a flush draw roughly 20% of the time. There are simply too many other possible combinations of cards for us to put our opponent on a flush draw unless we have some other information at our disposal. Once we bet and are called, however, we can increase the chances of them having such a hand.

So factoring in the unknown/randomness, we can effectivley cut the FD outs in half, to 5? This would be groundbreaking for me...

Frustrating if/when they get there, but I can see how we can get way more value out of times they are not on that draw...

Again, not totally on topic, but with community cards with draws to a flush AND a straight -- are the smaller value bets now begging drawing calls (ie should I now bet more) or is this merely perceived danger, and I only need defend against a single draw (assuming it's unlikely villain is drawing to both)...

Sorry if this is incoherent -- I really love these type of posts that get me thinking -- for my wife's sake I hope I don't talk in my sleep tonight!! U Rule, Bwammo!