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: 3,338
      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: 1,039
      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: 3,338
      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!!!