88 thin value?

Hey GingerKid,

Standard flop bet for value/protection. Much stronger than checking without history.

Turn again for value/protection. We can check back rivers depending on the card.

What about size? I started value betting thinly 33%, and people mostly call. I also cbet some bdfd that wayy and some nut fd also thin value. The idea is to make villian more cappt after calling, which means more fe and ev for draws on turn? So far people dont attack it by raising thinly if they do i would cbet strong hands that way. But so tough for villian to defend 1-a on most boards especially in late position.

Originally posted by GingerKid
What about size? I started value betting thinly 33%, and people mostly call. I also cbet some bdfd that wayy and some nut fd also thin value. The idea is to make villian more cappt after calling, which means more fe and ev for draws on turn? So far people dont attack it by raising thinly if they do i would cbet strong hands that way. But so tough for villian to defend 1-a on most boards especially in late position.

Size smallish. Definitely less than half, sometimes less than 1/3rd.

The idea is that when our holding is likely to be the best hand we are not overly exploitable. I.e if villain starts folding too much we make auto profit. And if he starts calling too much vs the small sizing we exactly just start to extract value with our made hand.

In term of calling, the only thing villain can really do to top us is call with the perfect frequency - which is tough for a lot of regulars since it involves calling with some very weak hands and they are used to playing vs larger sizings.

Imo the problem could be that villian realizes that we do it for thin value mostly, so adjustment is to
Raise most good top pair + in which case we would have to protect range?

I doubt betting on the small on the flop is best. It's giving great odds for a large chunk of his range that is behind and is continuing anyway against larger bets. There's definitely no need for it. I'd go at least ~70%, depending on how approached with rest of range.

The turn betsize is okish, but probably not great. If you're worried about being exploited, you'd need to add some nut hands. And for this to be more profitable than bombing the nut hands, he would have to be making making some errors when seeing the smaller betsize which he doesn't when seeing a larger betsize.

FD's are calling anyway and this way they get to do it profitably. He'd have to be calling either with overcards and no draw or weakpair or worse with no draw for this size to be best, when he would fold these hands against a larger bet.

INterestingly, it puts JT into an unknowningly tough spot for him. Because you block all the 8's. So to him it will look like a profitably call, but with your blockers it wont be.

I think you are just observing his upper part of range like fd which also dont fold vs larger bet. But even vs fd we dont have much value in betting 70%.
With small size villian will have to call % of overcards on both streets vs which we have value (with biger bet no value).

So on one side he getd better pot odds to call which means less EV for us more for him, but on the other side we can value bet more hands for value which would otherwise have to check. So if you compare 2 options for this hand e.g on turn, with betting 33% we give him good pot odds but with checking turn (because we cant bet for value 70% pot) we give him even better pot odds, actually freeroll.

So with your line he would freeroll turn (also fd freeroll) and with my line he will get good pot odds but no freeroll.

if it's not clear, I'd bet turn, just larger. not check

But do you consider having > 50% equity vs villian defend range after betting 70% pot size? If not, then it is turning hand into bluff. Off course, if we would have > 50% equity then it is a clear 70% pot size bet and check river. The problem is, it is harldy 50% equity. Even in late positions on turn it would be hard to have > 50%.

i think the small size should work pretty well here - we want to bet to make him fold a hand like KQ but as Ginger metioned we cant really go for large sizings and expect to be good against the caalling range (since our bet is somewhat thin)
IF we have a clear rangesplit with respect to our sizing in this spot that might become a problem against some opponents, however I would not be too concerned about that -> we can easily induce these guys w nutted hands by also betting a similar size

Sure, if they become too agro vs sich line the max EV becomes to put strong hands insuch range.

Originally posted by GingerKid
But do you consider having > 50% equity vs villian defend range after betting 70% pot size? If not, then it is turning hand into bluff. Off course, if we would have > 50% equity then it is a clear 70% pot size bet and check river. The problem is, it is harldy 50% equity. Even in late positions on turn it would be hard to have > 50%.

I disagree with taht >50% equity rule

So which rule do you follow, and if you can explain it why is it better than >50% rule? or at least, why do you disagree with > 50%?

Do you agree that if you bet turn and you have e.g. 45% equity vs villian defend range, and you plan to check river unless you hit set, that it is a losing bet? Off course we can say that checking turn back can be potentially less EV than bet because villian can bluff us off the hand too often on river, but it is impossible to calculate such EV and to say which one is better.

Originally posted by GingerKid
So which rule do you follow, and if you can explain it why is it better than >50% rule? or at least, why do you disagree with > 50%?

Do you agree that if you bet turn and you have e.g. 45% equity vs villian defend range, and you plan to check river unless you hit set, that it is a losing bet? Off course we can say that checking turn back can be potentially less EV than bet because villian can bluff us off the hand too often on river, but it is impossible to calculate such EV and to say which one is better.

I subscribe to the 'no rules' rule.

Basically, the equity of an individual hand doesn't matter. The equity of the entire betting range is what's important and having a more merged range make one more difficult to play against.

It's kind of similar to those hands where you are raising top pair after calling a 3b in 3b pots sometimes. But less extreme imo.
There's little bit in this series here if you have a RIO sub.

I disagree with your last paragraph because when considering an individual hand (btw this hand also has an OESD), I don't think the equity is relevant. Categorizing a hand as a bluff or value is helpful for balancing a range but has its limitations. Many hands have combinations of both and can still fit into an overall range well.

I don't think it's a losing bet, or I wouldn't make it! Value combined with his equity folded + showdown value make it more than fine.
I also don't mind giving villain a chance to bluff on the river. I think I'd have to be making some mistakes to allow these bluffs to be +EV.
It's possible to calculate these things if we know everyones ranges.

Originally posted by GingerKid
Imo the problem could be that villian realizes that we do it for thin value mostly, so adjustment is to
Raise most good top pair + in which case we would have to protect range?

If this is really an issue (not usually an issue without history) then we can either protect our range with a few combos of strong hands, or we can completely tip the tables making a counteradjustment where we always have a strong holding where we bet small.

But I stand by the idea that when we are betting primarily for protection then a small sizing is optimal.

Imo the 70% sizing would essentially be not making full use of the range of bet sizings we have available purely based on a feeling we need to arbitarily standardize our bet sizing across all of our holdings - it can never be optimal. There are huge merits to betting flop small imo.

Basically, the equity of an individual hand doesn't matter.

Can you explain please how the equity of the hand doesnt matter? Off course in some cases when villian folds 100% vs bet then it doesnt matter, but in other cases, it will be one of main factors which influence EV.

The equity of the entire betting range is what's important and having a more merged range make one more difficult to play against.

So how do you use information "equity of entire betting range" to make solid play?
Does it mean that when you construct your range, you try to have some particular equity? So it means if your entire equity is as you desire, then you can bet also 88 even if 88 is not max EV as bet because only entire equity matters?

I disagree with your last paragraph because when considering an individual hand (btw this hand also has an OESD), I don't think the equity is relevant. Categorizing a hand as a bluff or value is helpful for balancing a range but has its limitations. Many hands have combinations of both and can still fit into an overall range well.

Imo equity matters a lot. If we have 0% equity hand, then it is likely a losing bet vs good villian. If we have 100% equity then it is winning bet. There are off course marginal equities where it is hard to say if it is bluff or value bet, and hard to say if it is better to check or bet. But still equity also in that case gives us info that we shouldnt go crazy with it.

I don't think it's a losing bet, or I wouldn't make it! Value combined with his equity folded + showdown value make it more than fine.

Yes, it is not losing bet observing total hand EV. I meant, when looking about EV of only amount of bet (if pot would be zero) if it is going to bring you more money or to lose. And having <50% equity will in most cases going to be losing bet, assuming villian is not going to overfold next streets but will make you indifferent.

It's possible to calculate these things if we know everyones ranges.

Sure it is possible, but such ranges are made on pure assumptions, so it is kind of pointless for real world poker.