An interesting question on Value-betting...

[PNJs_dad]

I saw a question on another site about how much to value bet on a particular hand. I thought I would share my thoughts and hopefully hear other players thoughts on the subject. Here is the hand and question as posted on the other site....

$15 buyin MTT. MP1 is semi tight (13/6), CO is a loose passive fish (like 50/5) over a small sample. Best guess is that at least one of them is chasing overcards. I doubt either of them will try to bluff at it 3way if I check, but the only pairs that might call a bet are 66-88 (which seem unlikely), I doubt anyone has 9x either given the action.

Also, anyone hate my turn check?


Grabbed by Holdem Manager
NL Holdem $150(BB) Merge
SB ($1,224)
Hero ($3,998)
UTG ($2,000)
UTG+1 ($2,269)
UTG+2 ($4,709)
MP1 ($1,942)
CO ($2,955)
BTN ($7,495)

Dealt to Hero 5

5

fold, fold, fold, MP1 calls $150, CO calls $150, fold, SB calls $75, Hero checks

FLOP ($600) 3

9

2

SB checks, Hero bets $300, MP1 calls $300, CO calls $300, SB folds

TURN ($1,500) 3

9

2

2

Hero checks, MP1 checks, CO checks

RIVER ($1,500) 3

9

2

2

5

Hero...?

Now a couple of responses on the other site was to bet $800 or to shove in this spot. Here was my response.

Sorry guys but I disagree here. I believe $800 is way too much for a value bet. You WANT a call right? Look at the stacks of the other 2 players in the pot. One has a little over 10bbs and the other has around 16bbs if they fold here. You have to bet fairly small for them to call. Remember your not applying pressure here or making their decision tough. My theory on value betting is you want their decision to be EASY. CALL! So I think with 2 opponents here the right amount would be around $400-500.

P.S. Some opponents will see this as weakness and raise you...which IMO would be even better in this spot.

I hope some other players will discuss this as well. Could be a learning experience for us all. Thanks!

 

[WVHillbilly]

Shove. You don't have to be called very often for shoving to be >>>>> than betting small.

Let's say you bet $500, how often do you expect to get called? Let's say 100% of the time by 1 opponent and maybe 50% of the time by both. So since we ALWAYS have the best hand our Ev for betting $500 is $750 + $1500 in the pot or $2250.

Now let's say we shove, it's going to be very hard for MP1 to fold any pair on that board getting 2:1 so let's say he calls $1500 50% of the time. Already our Ev for shoving is equal to betting $500 at $2250 but since there is always a greater than zero chance that the CO calls shoving is WAY WAY better than betting $500.

 

[8Michael3]

Shove. You don't have to be called very often for shoving to be >>>>> than betting small.

Let's say you bet $500, how often do you expect to get called? Let's say 100% of the time by 1 opponent and maybe 50% of the time by both. So since we ALWAYS have the best hand our Ev for betting $500 is $750 + $1500 in the pot or $2250.

Now let's say we shove, it's going to be very hard for MP1 to fold any pair on that board getting 2:1 so let's say he calls $1500 50% of the time. Already our Ev for shoving is equal to betting $500 at $2250 but since there is always a greater than zero chance that the CO calls shoving is WAY WAY better than betting $500.

agree! snap shove. youre chip equity is much bigger in the long run if you shove these spots!

 

[PNJs_dad]

Very interesting point of view WV. I am always thinking about a certain hand. Maybe I should think about +EV more. Over the long run I do agree with you. Hard to be needing chips in this spot and seeing fold, fold. behind. Gonna have to read more books considering plays like this. Can you recommend anything? Thanks...this is exactly why I wanted to post this.

 

[WVHillbilly]

Can't think of any specific books but I'm sure most would have something on the Ev of shoving vs betting smaller. I'm not a tourney guy but I'm pretty sure near the end of the tourney it might be right to bet smaller just because people will be calling less frequently and each chip means more but I'm not tourney smart enough to know when that is or even if that is.

Also it could be that betting less than a shove could have even greater expectation than shoving. Say you know the CO calls a pot size bet a lot more often than he calls off all his chips, with any pair for instance, a PSB will likely have greater expectation than shoving but without knowledge of your opponents tendencies my default here would be to shove. Shoving is certainly better than a 1/3 pot bet.

And yeah it does suck when they both fold but you have to look at the play long term.

 

[cardplayer52]

I think it's important to think about the range of hands that call a vbet here. Seeings how your flop bet got called it's likely one of them has somekind of peice of the flop. If it's a 2 stacks are going in reguardless(but if the're that passive maybe not). If they hold a PP or a 3 or 9 I think it best to go for the most value possible. As long as it's not overbetting the pot then a shove I think is best. I find it doubtful a smaller bet here will get players to call with anymore weaker hands or induce these types of players to 3bet shove with complete air. If the players were more aggro then I could see a smaller bet to induce. There are zero stronger hands you are getting to fold here and as I see it anyweaker hand that will call a smaller bet will call a shove.

 

[cjatud2012]

I'm pretty sure NLHE: Theory and Practice by Sklansky talks about this type of value betting, where if the bigger bet gets called x amount of time it's more profitable than betting smaller if that gets called y amount of the time. QTip talked about this in another thread here, actually, if you want you could look at his post history and see if you can find where he talks it...

 

[PNJs_dad]

I'm really gonna have to do some more reading on Value Betting strategy. This has really sparked my brain on the subject. I may be costing myself money. Thanks again for your comments/thoughts on the matter.

 

[KoRnholio]

This hand looks familiar.. Oh yeah I posted it on that other site!

One of Sklansky's books (NLH Theory and Practice- I believe) talks about this kind of value betting analysis with a matrix of bet sizes and calling %s.

Let's say (for the sake of simplification) that there is just one villain in the hand and his remaining stack is 2000. We think he'll call a shove 10% of the time, a half pot (750) bet 30%, and a small 375 chip bet 50% of the time.

Equity for:
Shove = 10% * 2000 = +200
Half-pot = 30% * 750 = +225
Small = 50% * 375 = +$188

Given these calling %'s, the half pot bet (or something near it) is best. But how did I come up with those calling %s? A combination of past experience, player reads and hand reading.

The way the hand played out where they just limped preflop, called a small bet and then declined to bet the turn when checked to, it's pretty safe to say that neither has a very good hand. If either of them has a pair of 9's (or better) I would be quite surprised, as surely they would have at least bet the turn when checked to. They very likely have weak pair or high card hands along the lines of AT, 77, KJ, A5, A3, 54s.

Out of that subset of hands (among equally weak others), the middle pairs 66-88 would be about the only thing that could even contemplate calling a river all in, but even then maybe only 50% of the time. But the probability of them having a pair of fives, threes or ace high is much, much higher than that of having one of those pocket pairs. This is where Pokerstove shows itself to be an insanely powerful learning tool.

Let's say that there's just one villain (for simplification) and he could have either AT, AJ, 66, 77, 88, 54s, A5 or A3. 66+77+88 is 1.4% of all starting hands (preflop). AT,AJ,A5,A3 (suited and offsuit) and 54s make up 6.5% of all preflop starting hands. So it's over 4.5 times as likely (6.5/1.4 = 4.6) that the villain has one of AT,AJ,A5,A3 rather than 66/77/88.

Cliff notes for the above math:

He's unlikely to have a hand to even contemplate calling an all in with. But there's many other hands that might call a smaller bet. We'll win more with an all in bet when he has the unlikely hand, but more with a smaller bet when he has the more likely weaker hands.

This is probably all very confusing to most players, and it's not something that you can really use at the table in the "heat of battle". But it is something that will help you hand reading and hand analysis after the fact, which will improve your play a lot in the future when similar situations come up (as they often do).

 

[WVHillbilly]

Let's say that there's just one villain (for simplification) and he could have either AT, AJ, 66, 77, 88, 54s, A5 or A3. 66+77+88 is 1.4% of all starting hands (preflop). AT,AJ,A5,A3 (suited and offsuit) and 54s make up 6.5% of all preflop starting hands. So it's over 4.5 times as likely (6.5/1.4 = 4.6) that the villain has one of AT,AJ,A5,A3 rather than 66/77/88.

Are you talking about the hand posted??? If so:

1. We have 2 villains
2. Villain 1 only has a PSB remaining in his stack
3. Your ranges are artificial to try to support your claim. Villain can have A3 but not A4 for the rivered straight? Villain calls the flop bet with AT/AJ?? Villain doesn't have A9 in his range?

This hand clearly calls for AT LEAST a PSB.

 

[PNJs_dad]

This hand looks familiar.. Oh yeah I posted it on that other site!

I appreciate that very much. I wanted to share this at a few of the other sites that I'm a member of cause I wanted alot of players opinions. It really got me to thinking and reconsidering my stance on Value betting. Thanks again bro!

 

[KoRnholio]

Are you talking about the hand posted??? If so:

1. We have 2 villains
2. Villain 1 only has a PSB remaining in his stack
3. Your ranges are artificial to try to support your claim. Villain can have A3 but not A4 for the rivered straight? Villain calls the flop bet with AT/AJ?? Villain doesn't have A9 in his range?

This hand clearly calls for AT LEAST a PSB.

1- I was helping explain the though process of ranges, etc and used a simplified scenario for clarity (as stated)

2- Okay? That guy is a tight player who isn't apt to stack off lightly for his tournament life. If he has a 9 (very unlikely as he checked the turn) he might even fold if his kicker isnt good as he can only beat a bluff.

3- Sure villain could have A4/33/A2 and be slowplaying on the turn. But a smaller or all in river bet doesn't matter against those hands, since they will be raising all in over top of me anyways- which is why I ignored the "nutlike" hands altogether.

It comes down to hand reading, the chances either of these guys have even any 9 is very small. Their ranges are so weak, that the chance they call off light is just way too small. The all in bet is still decent equity wise, but there's a much higher chance (and chip equity) that someone looks up a smaller bet with a weaker hand.

I appreciate that very much. I wanted to share this at a few of the other sites that I'm a member of cause I wanted alot of players opinions. It really got me to thinking and reconsidering my stance on Value betting. Thanks again bro!

No problem, not the most complicated little hand on the surface, but still interesting.

 

[WVHillbilly]

1- I was helping explain the though process of ranges, etc and used a simplified scenario for clarity (as stated)

2- Okay? That guy is a tight player who isn't apt to stack off lightly for his tournament life. If he has a 9 (very unlikely as he checked the turn) he might even fold if his kicker isnt good as he can only beat a bluff.

3- Sure villain could have A4/33/A2 and be slowplaying on the turn. But a smaller or all in river bet doesn't matter against those hands, since they will be raising all in over top of me anyways- which is why I ignored the "nutlike" hands altogether.

It comes down to hand reading, the chances either of these guys have even any 9 is very small. Their ranges are so weak, that the chance they call off light is just way too small. The all in bet is still decent equity wise, but there's a much higher chance (and chip equity) that someone looks up a smaller bet with a weaker hand.

No problem, not the most complicated little hand on the surface, but still interesting.

But by simplifying your scenario you make your analysis FOR THIS HAND wrong imo.

Also there is NO CERTAINTY that either villain will raise a small bet with trips/straights. So betting smaller doesn't make as much from these hands as shoving does. People see monsters and if the board is paired they'll almost always call any bet with a straight/trips but they reopen the betting a lot less often.

I have ZERO doubt that shoving here has better expectation than betting $500.

 

[KoRnholio]

But by simplifying your scenario you make your analysis FOR THIS HAND wrong imo.

Also there is NO CERTAINTY that either villain will raise a small bet with trips/straights. So betting smaller doesn't make as much from these hands as shoving does. People see monsters and if the board is paired they'll almost always call any bet with a straight/trips but they reopen the betting a lot less often.

I have ZERO doubt that shoving here has better expectation than betting $500.

So you think people will call a shove with hands like A5 or 77 but not raise or shove over with a straight or A2 if I make a smaller bet (750, half the pot)? Seems illogical to me.

 

[robhimself]

If you were playing against good players I'd say make a weak lead (1/3 pot or so) to try to induce a bluff. The problem in this hand is that it seems like there is nothing in their ranges that they can call with, so checking might be your best option (even though you've said you don't think they will bluff, not sure what you could possibly be basing that on).

 

[KoRnholio]

If you were playing against good players I'd say make a weak lead (1/3 pot or so) to try to induce a bluff. The problem in this hand is that it seems like there is nothing in their ranges that they can call with, so checking might be your best option (even though you've said you don't think they will bluff, not sure what you could possibly be basing that on).

I agree on the stronger players bit.

I don't believe they would bluff if I check because:

A) it's a 3 way pot, anyone attempting a bluff has to make both players fold to succeed rather than just one
B) they're both passive (one tight passive, one loose passive)
C) if they called the flop with a high card hand like AJ, then get checked to twice, there would be a good chance their hand is still good (has showdown value) and thus no need to bluff. Even if someone was on a draw with 54//64/A5/A4 they now have at least two pair which has good showdown value.