? about betting in MTTs and STTs

cjatud2012

cjatud2012

¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Silver Level
Joined
Mar 12, 2009
Total posts
3,904
Chips
0
It's a pretty widely accepted notion that there are two main reasons why we bet:

1) To get calls from worse hands (a value bet)
2) To get folds from better hands (a bluff)

My question is, when we bet in tournaments, are our goals the same? This may seem like a silly question, but I really would like to get some feedback on it, and am curious to see what the responses are.
 
Lafayette2

Lafayette2

Rock Star
Silver Level
Joined
Feb 8, 2010
Total posts
195
Chips
0
My first goal to bet is to win the pot
If i value bet its to see where I stand, leading to my goal of winning the pot.
If I bluff, its because i think i can win the pot, not necessarly because i want them to fold. its because sometimes if you're aggressive enough you can force people to fold. Yes!
Last man standing. Was gonna say best hands win but that isnot always the case. Nor best played hands.
 
W

wetyeti

Rock Star
Silver Level
Joined
Jan 3, 2010
Total posts
229
Chips
0
What about getting worse hands to fold? Like drawing hands? Sometimes we bet to kill the action and move on. Like if I hit 2 pair on a wet board I'm betting big to kill the action.
Just my ideas.
 
slycbnew

slycbnew

Cardschat Elite
Silver Level
Joined
Aug 8, 2008
Total posts
2,876
Chips
0
My first goal to bet is to win the pot
If i value bet its to see where I stand, leading to my goal of winning the pot.
If I bluff, its because i think i can win the pot, not necessarly because i want them to fold. its because sometimes if you're aggressive enough you can force people to fold. Yes!
Last man standing. Was gonna say best hands win but that isnot always the case. Nor best played hands.

These are common misconceptions about betting.

1. Betting to win the pot - you want to maximize the ROI value of your bets. Betting because you have the best hand, for example, is not a good reason to bet. If you flop a royal flush (extreme example), the only reason to bet is because you hope a worse hand will call - otherwise, betting is a moot point, you pick up the pot with the unbreakable nuts, which will happen whether you bet or not. Make the example less extreme - you hold 55, and flop A53. Now you bet hoping that Ax/53/54/32 will call. Of course, there's a chance that the turn and/or river will make someone a better hand, which sucks - but on the flop, you absolutely want to have a worse hand call, or you will not maximize the value of your flopped set.

2. Value betting for information - I opened a hand today in MP holding AQo and was called by BTN. Flop was QcTs3s. I value bet 3/4 pot (my hand is the best the majority of the time, so I'm betting for value) and was minraised. What information did I obtain? Well, it helped me narrow BTN's range of hands quite a bit - he could have a set/AQ/KQ/QJ/QT/Q3/KJ/J9/flush draws/gutshots/a couple of weird Tx/complete air. I'm sure he never does this w AA or KK (would've 3bet pf). What should I do with that information?

My point here is that the information I received from my value bet doesn't tell me what to do. The reason for my value bet was to get worse hands to call - now I have to decide if my hand has good enough equity to continue to the raise. (fwiw, he had KsQs - I still have the best hand, but he's got good equity against my hand)

3. If you're bluffing, you absolutely want people to fold. That's what a bluff is. If you don't want people to fold, then you're not bluffing, you're value betting. You can semi-bluff - where you have a good equity hand that currently is not likely best, but can improve to being best, like a flush draw - but when you're semi-bluffing, you need people to fold a significant amount of the time to make it a profitable play.

wetyeti brings up an excellent point - we do not necessarily always want to be called by hands that have good equity (say, a combo draw) even if we're currently ahead, but are unlikely to further improve. This is the case where we can't rebuy and the pot represents a significant portion of our stack.
 
cjatud2012

cjatud2012

¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Silver Level
Joined
Mar 12, 2009
Total posts
3,904
Chips
0
wetyeti brings up an excellent point - we do not necessarily always want to be called by hands that have good equity (say, a combo draw) even if we're currently ahead, but are unlikely to further improve. This is the case where we can't rebuy and the pot represents a significant portion of our stack.

This is sort of in the direction I was looking for. In a cash game, if you lose a pot, you can just top-off and be back at a full stack. But if you lose a pot in a MTT or STT, you've significantly affected your tournament equity. So where do you draw the line between getting max value and accumulation/ survival?

For example, I remember when c9 did the tournament quiz, and we had JJ on the BTN. We were on the bubble, and we were pretty short stacked. We shipped, and the BB said he had A6s. He then asked us if we wanted a call or not. Clearly, in a cash game, we would want a call, since our cEV is hugely positive. But in a tournament, our $EV is actually not positive in this situation, because when we lose, our tournament equity is now zero, whereas when we double up our chips, we don't double our equity.

This is a pretty exaggerated example, since we really will never know what exactly a villain has, and our $EV may be positive against his range of calling hands. I guess what I'm trying to figure out is whether or not our goals for betting are different at all in tournaments vs cash games, based on the fact that our cEV is not the same as our $EV.
 
cjatud2012

cjatud2012

¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Silver Level
Joined
Mar 12, 2009
Total posts
3,904
Chips
0
bump bump, anyone have thoughts on this?
 
Related Betting Guides: CA Betting - AU Betting - UK Betting - SportsBetting Poker - BetStars
Top