When to call c-bets with nothing?

[Liveone1]

Think it through.

If they were willing to let go if their c-bets didnt work, then their equity share in the hand is low and they put themselves in a position where they are bluffing too often and then giving up.

So bluffing isnt working out too well fro them is it?

Dude, you are contradicting yourself. One minute you acknowledge that the majority of the field at microstakes is bad and thus makes bad plays, so you should play accordingly (it seems this means ultra nitty to you).

Then when it's convenient for the sake of whatever it is your trying to prove you act as though bad play should not be expected when you say something like , "If they were willing to let go if their c-bets didnt work, then their equity share in the hand is low and they put themselves in a position where they are bluffing too often and then giving up." So I should think it through because people don't normally play that bad.

Uhm, Yeah! they make dumb plays like this all the time. Which further drives home my point that it's up to the good microstakes player to exploit ALL TYPES of bad play and not just bad nitty play.

 

[Stu_Ungar]

Dude, you are contradicting yourself. One minute you acknowledge that the majority of the field at microstakes is bad and thus makes bad plays, so you should play accordingly.

Then when it's convenient for the sake of whatever it is your trying to prove you act as though bad play should not be expected when you say something like , "If they were willing to let go if their c-bets didnt work, then their equity share in the hand is low and they put themselves in a position where they are bluffing too often and then giving up." So I should think it through.

Uhm, Yeah! they make dumb plays like this all the time. It's up to the good microstakes player to exploit these things.

The exploit didnt involve any bluffing did it?

 

[WVHillbilly]

The other point I should have made was about raising vs calling both preflop and on the flop. By flat calling preflop you do not narrow down villain's range at all. A player with 100/100 stats raises with not only 32o but AA so when you flat call you are playing against their entire range and must calculate accordingly. For loose players that range is very, very wide and postflop play becomes that much more difficult when you don't narrow it.

On the flop by flat calling you also are not defining that bet is a value bet or a bluff. By raising you can find that out much more quickly. To me calling is really what you do when you need no more information about your opponent's hand and feel that by raising you would lose value over calling. That's why I don't like to float with overs or even a single pair. On the flop I have lately been continuing my raise or fold style that I had been always so good about preflop.

Since a preflop investment is typically 3/4 bb by folding when you miss you lose very little but when you start to chase by calling or betting bigger and bigger amts on each street you are risking many chips for what in the long term is a nominal return. After all the average EV for AKo is going to be somewhere around .5 BB. I do very well with AK , I think in part because I know when to release it and in part because I perceive that my table image must be pretty scary as my 3bet success lately is very high lately.

So you like betting/raising for information?

Value
Bluffs
Collection of dead money

Which category does your bet fall into?

 

[Stu_Ungar]

On the flop by flat calling you also are not defining that bet is a value bet or a bluff. By raising you can find that out much more quickly. To me calling is really what you do when you need no more information about your opponent's hand and feel that by raising you would lose value over calling. That's why I don't like to float with overs or even a single pair. On the flop I have lately been continuing my raise or fold style that I had been always so good about preflop.

You arent playing a single hand.

You are playing an entire range.

What you know about the villian is that he cbets too much on the flop and then check folds a lot on the turn.

You call with AK is for value, because you already know that you will win this pot more than 50% of the time on the turn.

 

[Liveone1]

Question:

You have a bluff catcher on the river and your opponent bets pot. You think he'll make that bet with all his hands that beat you and all his missed draws. You think his missed draws make up 30% of his range.

How often should you call to maximally exploit your opponent?

I don't have a clue dude. I'd guess about 30% of the time.

 

[Stu_Ungar]

I don't have a clue dude. I'd guess about 30% of the time.

And that is the reason bluffs dont work at the micros!

 

[Liveone1]

Well, alright guys for what it's worth I see your points, but I think there is more to the game than simply numbers and that aspect should not be ignored because you are unsure how to overcome it. There will always be opportunities at the felt that ABC poker will not help you through, even at micros... all I'm saying. Sometimes you've gotta make that move.

 

[WVHillbilly]

I don't have a clue dude. I'd guess about 30% of the time.

Answer in spoiler in case someone doesn't want to see for whatever reason:

Spoiler

The answer is that we should NEVER call. We need to be good 33% of the time to call a pot sized bet and since we're only going to be good 30% of the time the call is -EV.

Now if he's bluffing 40% of the time, we should call 100% of the time because calling is +EV.

When you start calling some % of the time and folding some other % of the time you make less or lose more than you do by taking the optimal line described above for each scenario.

In math terms if the pot is $10 and our opponent bets $10 and our hand is good 30% of the time our EV for calling 100% is:
($20 * .3) + (-$10 * .7) = $6 - $7 = -$1

Our EV for calling 30% (your answer) is:
% called * EV of calling or .3 * -$1 = -$.30

Our EV for folding is always $0. So folding is better than ever calling.

 

[Stu_Ungar]

Well, alright guys for what it's worth I see your points, but I think there is more to the game than simply numbers.

Dont you see.

Even when presented with a situation where you are given a 100% accurate range and a bet size that can never justify the call AND more than 15 seconds to make your decision

AND

You still represent one of the better micro players....

You still managed to make an unprofitable call.

Thats why bluffing at the micros dosent work.... They find a way to call too often!

 

[WVHillbilly]

Also don't think I'm picking on you Liveone1. I'm not but I did think you would get the answer wrong. I also guarantee you're not the only one who will read this thread and do the same or similar. It is our nature.

 

[Liveone1]

Honestly, I just took a guess straight out of my ass. I'm not really big on crunching all the numbers like you guys with all the EV terms and things like that. I just use common sense really and it proves itself to be more than enough.

If the pots a certain size relative to our rolls and the limits were playing and all I have is TPTK and there's a small/medium chance (I guess this means 30%) that the guys bluffing @ a flush draw, I'm folding. I wouldn't be a winning player if I weren't able to make this laydown long term. My mind equates this as a lose lose situation automatically, but when you make it a math problem I really don't have a clue. So, in reality the answer I gave probably was nothing close to what I really would have done in that situation. Just sayin'...

I don't know how you all are able to play the game like you do, but it seems like overkill really. lol. I'm not trying to argue with the numbers, but I think all you really need to know is how to solve problems well and a very general understanding of certain percentages like preflop odds, odds on the flop and a generalized understanding of pot/implied odds. Most importantly you need to understand people and how they think. With that you should be good to go. It's how I play and it works very well.

EDIT: I'll admit you all really did spark my interest in the math quite a bit...enough to make me want to study it more. I don't think I'll ever run numbers to the extent a lot of you do though.

 

[Liveone1]

Also don't think I'm picking on you Liveone1. I'm not but I did think you would get the answer wrong. I also guarantee you're not the only one who will read this thread and do the same or similar. It is our nature.

My name isn't Nancy. It's all good dude. Actually as I just posted you've made me want to read up on odds a bit. It can't hurt to say the least. I do stand by a lot of what I've said though!

 

[WVHillbilly]

My name isn't Nancy. It's all good dude. Actually as I just posted you've made me want to read up on odds a bit. It can't hurt to say the least. I do stand by a lot of what I've said though!

lol when I just read this post I thought the first sentence said "My name's Nancy" and I was confused (or thought maybe you were confused).

It's all good I just didn't want you to think I was trying to be a dick (it comes naturally so there is no need to try) and like trick you or something.

 

[Stu_Ungar]

My name isn't Nancy. It's all good dude. Actually as I just posted you've made me want to read up on odds a bit. It can't hurt to say the least. I do stand by a lot of what I've said though!

Good to hear you want to learn more.

I wouldnt stand by the looking for bluffing spots at the micros though.

I mean VW gave a perfect example of a situation where it would be good to bluff .. the villian can never profit in the LR.. yet you still called.

Like VW said, you wont be the only one who will make that call either.

 

[WVHillbilly]

Reading comprehension fail.

 

[Stu_Ungar]

Reading comprehension fail.

What did I say people base 85% of their decision making on?

 

[cAPSLOCK]

Good thread... great info from both Stu and VW.



But seriously this is good info in the thread.

Honestly, I just took a guess straight out of my ass. I'm not really big on crunching all the numbers like you guys with all the EV terms and things like that. I just use common sense really and it proves itself to be more than enough.

I'd say two things to this. To get ahead in this game you need to know when calling is profitable over the long run. You wouldn't take a bet where you pay $1 to see a coin flip and make $.95 if it comes up heads. But it's a good bet over the long haul if the payoff is $1.05 EVERY poker decision can be represented in terms almost this simple. It's just a matter of learning how to think that way.

As the competition gets tougher more and more of your edge is reliant on making sound mathematical decisions. At the micros you can play some of these situations wrong and make up for it because of your opponents bad play. This is exactly why I have a bankroll at all.

As to "playing by feel", I think we all do to some extent or another, but saturating ourselves with this information when we are not playing makes it seep down into into our subconscious and come out in our "feel" play.

Also, you might be surprised at how fast you can start to correctly evaluate plays at the table when you have spent some time thinking in these terms. Practice makes perfect.

 

[watchtowel]

Hey thanks for the input guys. WV all this talk about EV+, FR, we need to be good a certain percentage of times and 30% of his ranges are bluffs etc. Where can I learn all this? is there any good articles that go through the mathematics that I should know?

 

[WVHillbilly]

Well my example was just straight pot odds. To figure out break even % needed to call just divide the amount you need to call by the total pot after you call. I just pulled the 30% number out of my ass to make the point but that can be determined (closely enough anyway) by estimating a range and figuring what % of that range you beat/beats you.

I'm sure there are several articles in the strategy articles on CC to help with this stuff.

 

[Liveone1]

Good to hear you want to learn more.

I wouldnt stand by the looking for bluffing spots at the micros though.

I mean VW gave a perfect example of a situation where it would be good to bluff .. the villian can never profit in the LR.. yet you still called.

Like VW said, you wont be the only one who will make that call either.

Yeah, I do want to learn more and I think everyone should. I also stand by what I said because it's not incorrect in my mind. I'm done pushing it though.

It's clear to me after the example VW gave that I would have in fact folded in that situation if I were in it while at the tables. It's an easy ABC lay down. I was thrown off by the question being phrased that way. Too mathematical for me ATM . I don't compute the game that way, yet.

Felt like being old and trying to learn internet slang ftw. It'd be like omg, wtf kma...roflmfaocopter. Pwnt!

 

[Big_Rudy]

Alright, I have....questions.... First-off, i'm pretty groggy, up all night last night, little or no sleep today. So, if I'm off the mark; forgive me.

Anyway, I believe somewhere WVH said it would be incorrect to ever call if villain's bluffing/missed draw range is 30% and it would be incorrect to ever NOT call if villain's bluffing/missed draw range is 40% (obv paraphrasing, but I THINK I got the gist of it).

So, my question is.... How can you ever put villain (who, at the micros, is likely an unknown) on one or the other of these ranges? I.E. always call his range or always fold to his range. Very often I'm at a table where I'll have no more than 20 or so hands on everyone. Then what?

Thx.

 

[Stu_Ungar]

So, my question is.... How can you ever put villain (who, at the micros, is likely an unknown) on one or the other of these ranges? I.E. always call his range or always fold to his range. Very often I'm at a table where I'll have no more than 20 or so hands on everyone. Then what?

Thx.

Its difficult / near impossible to narrow ranges to such an extent at the micros because players are bad.

A good player has fewer options available to him in a hand than a bad player as a good players decisions will all revolve around winning in the LR and therefore some options simply dont make sense as they dont show a profit.

A bad player can literally do anything, some things will show a profit and some a loss.

Since the micros are filed with bad players their are limits to how accurately you can estimate their ranges.

Putting people on accurate ranges is what seperates the likes of Ivey and Durrr from the rest of the world.

 

[Big_Rudy]

Its difficult / near impossible to narrow ranges to such an extent at the micros because players are bad....Putting people on accurate ranges is what seperates the likes of Ivey and Durrr from the rest of the world.

Thanks, Stu. That's kind-of what I figured. So while I agree with the theory WVH presents, its the application that seems like it will be problematical at the micros. Guess I've got work to do .