[NL20-NL50] Hand with flopzilla

    • Lunitis
      Lunitis
      Gold
      Joined: 22.02.2009 Posts: 20,132
      Hi.
      This hand will be showed in a different manner.
      Imagine we are against this player:
      51/7 VPIP/PFR 43hands

      We have KJ with TP + nut flush draw ip, we cbet the flop with TP. And giving a range to villain (that continues) we see that our equity is 53.2%, but even having +50% equity but we arent betting more than 50% of the combos. We are only ahead of 43.8% of combos on the turn.

      Taken from here:



      Should we cbet on the turn or not?
      Im trying to get n overall overview of this... we cbet if we get called by more combos behind than combos that are ahead, or we cbet if we have +50% equity? Lets ignore implicits for the case.
  • 4 replies
    • w34z3l
      w34z3l
      Coach
      Coach
      Joined: 03.08.2009 Posts: 13,295
      Originally posted by Lunitis
      Im trying to get n overall overview of this... we cbet if we get called by more combos behind than combos that are ahead, or we cbet if we have +50% equity? Lets ignore implicits for the case.
      We cbet for value because the range that calls us contains worse hands 50% of the time or more. We do not cbet for value because we have 50% or more in equity. Our opponent could fold that bottom 50% and always have a better hand when he calls.

      We cbet as a bluff when our opponent folds sufficiently often given the price we set ourself for a bluff. For example if we bet 1chip into a pot of 2chips, we need our opponent to fold 33% or more of the combos in his range for a profitable bluff. Assuming we also have some pot equity we'd need our opponent to fold less than this.

      Maybe this will help you answer your own question. If you are still unsure please post more questions here. I'm not going to comment specifically on the hand with no stack-sizes and ignoring implied odds ;)
    • Lunitis
      Lunitis
      Gold
      Joined: 22.02.2009 Posts: 20,132
      Sorry i didnt express myself well
      And giving a range to villain (that continues) we see that our equity is 53.2%, but we are beating less than 50% of the combos.


      Im already assuming that this is his calling/raising range. I already set apart the folding combos.
    • w34z3l
      w34z3l
      Coach
      Coach
      Joined: 03.08.2009 Posts: 13,295
      Originally posted by Lunitis
      Sorry i didnt express myself well
      And giving a range to villain (that continues) we see that our equity is 53.2%, but we are beating less than 50% of the combos.


      Im already assuming that this is his calling/raising range. I already set apart the folding combos.
      I think I understand now :)

      The key thing here is the equity not the amount of combos. I.e to say villain must call us with a worse hand 50% of the time or more is actually misleading from this perspective. I.e what really matters is that the equity of villains calling range is lower than 50% vs you in order for a value bet to be profitable.

      I.e to illustrate, villain has 3hands and will call with all 3. 2 of them have 51% equity vs us and are favourites, and one is drawing stone cold dead. Villain actually has more combos of hands that are favourite against us but hopefully you can see it's a clear value bet.

      However just because you will get called by worse doesn't mean value betting is necessarily the best option. Villain may bluff with a much wider range than he calls with. Also you don't need to be a favourite vs villains range to bluffcatch because the money in the pot is taken into consideration. When you are value betting the money already in the pot is irrelevant.

      Thanks, I realise now that to be 100% correct I should not say----->
      Originally posted by w34z3l
      We cbet for value because the range that calls us contains worse hands 50% of the time or more.
      unless we are specifically on the river.

      For other streets I should say "We cbet for value because the range calls us has less than 50% equity vs us". In most cases these will be the same, but not always as your example points out.
    • Lunitis
      Lunitis
      Gold
      Joined: 22.02.2009 Posts: 20,132
      Thank you very much, now its clear.
      My confusion was due to that
      to say villain must call us with a worse hand 50% of the time or more is actually misleading from this perspective.


      we ear that all the time (that villain must call with more bad than better hands for us to be able to cbet), but in fact what really counts its equity. :club: