This site uses cookies to improve your browsing experience. By continuing to browse the website, you accept such cookies. For more details and to change your settings, see our Cookie Policy and Privacy Policy. Close

Valuebet

    • RasTweet
      RasTweet
      Bronze
      Joined: 26.12.2009 Posts: 4,553
      Hey guys!

      DrD and I are discussing what a valuebet is. Around the internet you can read "Value When you bet for value you have more than 50% equity versus the range of hands you expect to get called by" I say this is balls and DrD says this is correct. Now someone has to be the fish :f_biggrin:

      So here is what happened. I played a hand and the pot was $6 and the villain has $3 left. Now to make matters easy lets say that if we bet the villain is going to call 100% of his range.

      nl10Sh AA on QQx

      Because we say he calls 100% of the time we can also say he bets because thats going to have the same outcome and easier to count.

      So the pot will be $9 and I have to call $3. So have to be good 1 in 4 times to be break-even because:

      I win 1x$9 = +$9
      I lose 3x$3 = -$9
      Total = $0

      This means that in order to win in the long run I need to have 25% or more of equity vs his range.

      This proves I don't need 50+% equity in order to make a valuebet. (in my head it is)

      BUT DrD says that we need to be good 50% or more because we bet $3 he calls $3. If we win less then 50% then we are losing. This makes sense but he ignores the pot and I don't get why.

      Sorry guys I hope this makes sense!

      Regards

      RasTweet
  • 6 replies
    • DrDunne
      DrDunne
      Bronze
      Joined: 29.12.2010 Posts: 3,378
      so i'm a maths fish but the way i'm seeing this situation is:

      the pot is $6.70, we bet $3.68, villain calls $3.68
      ($14.06).

      in this spot, against a range of: QQ-55,AQs,A5s,KQs,Q7s+,AQo,KQo,Q8o+
      our AA has 42.5% equity.

      EV = (0.425 * $14.06) - (0.575 * $14.06)
      EV = (5.9755) - (8.0845)
      EV = -$2.109

      i'm also saying in order for our value bet to be profitable, we need to have >50% equity vs villain's calling range..
    • RasTweet
      RasTweet
      Bronze
      Joined: 26.12.2009 Posts: 4,553
      I'm the fish :facepalm:

      Ok so I get it now, but can't explain it right now.
    • RasTweet
      RasTweet
      Bronze
      Joined: 26.12.2009 Posts: 4,553
      If I have 25% of equity in a $6 pot. If I check I'm going to win $1,5

      If I bet $3 and lose 51% there it'll be a losing bet. So I'm losing there and win less then if I check.
    • holmeboy
      holmeboy
      Bronze
      Joined: 29.01.2010 Posts: 1,336
      DrD - :f_thumbsup:

      We can only call it a valuebet when ev betting > ev checking. ie we have >50%.

      So in your 25% example in OP you were right, but because you win more by checking your valuetowning yourself so to speak.
    • JCSeerup
      JCSeerup
      Bronze
      Joined: 14.12.2010 Posts: 1,094
      Originally posted by DrDunne
      so i'm a maths fish but the way i'm seeing this situation is:

      the pot is $6.70, we bet $3.68, villain calls $3.68
      ($14.06).

      in this spot, against a range of: QQ-55,AQs,A5s,KQs,Q7s+,AQo,KQo,Q8o+
      our AA has 42.5% equity.

      EV = (0.425 * $14.06) - (0.575 * $14.06)
      EV = (5.9755) - (8.0845)
      EV = -$2.109

      i'm also saying in order for our value bet to be profitable, we need to have >50% equity vs villain's calling range..
      I think we need to use our opponents actual range, which I don't think include so many strong hands like AQ, KQs, 99-QQ, since he limped. Which gives us even less equity and makes this a more clear check.

      But I'm not a math wiz so I might be wrong, just the way I see it. :)
    • DrDunne
      DrDunne
      Bronze
      Joined: 29.12.2010 Posts: 3,378
      Originally posted by JCSeerup
      I think we need to use our opponents actual range, which I don't think include so many strong hands like AQ, KQs, 99-QQ, since he limped. Which gives us even less equity and makes this a more clear check.

      But I'm not a math wiz so I might be wrong, just the way I see it. :)
      hmm the reason why i included AQ/KQ in his range is because he flatted from the blinds and it's difficult to say whether someone will 3bet these hands without actually seeing them do it. and QQ i agree definitely won't be in his range here because he didn't 3bet so our equity increases by 0.5% if we exclude QQ.

      and yeah you're right. it gets interesting if we exclude even 66/77/88 because then our equity drops from 42.5% to 27.9%. i think it's reasonable to exclude these hands since they will be having a tough time calling on the river vs a 3rd barrel. he might stick around with 99/TT/JJ more often because we're assuming he's a bad player. and that makes the EV of a bet = -$6.21 (if i did it right :D ). it might even be optimistic to include JJ/TT so if we remove these as well then we fail with 2% equity vs his range that continues so we pretty much rely on him hero calling with PPs.

      hope i haven't messed it up.. the maths hurts my brain!!!