$0.10/$0.20 No Limit Hold'em Cash, 5 Players
SB: $34.51 (172.6 bb)
BB: $26.92 (134.6 bb)
MP: $20 (100 bb)
CO: $22.50 (112.5 bb)
Hero (BTN): $20 (100 bb)
Preflop: Hero is BTN with K
J
2 folds, Hero raises to $0.50, SB folds, BB raises to $1.60, Hero raises to $3.60, BB calls $2.00
Flop: ($7.30) K T 6 (2 players)
BB checks, Hero bets $3.65, BB folds
BB is 30/14/3b 6,7 over 70 hands.
Is this ok as played? Should I bet a little bit smaller on the flop?
It is ok if you are completely aware that you 4b as a bluff.
In a 4b pot you can cbet 1/3-1/2 (30-55%).
Originally posted by nitrol
It is ok if you are completely aware that you 4b as a bluff.
In a 4b pot you can cbet 1/3-1/2 (30-55%).
Yes I'm aware that it is a bluff.
So nothing to worry about then.
The problem comes when a player bluffs preflop, hits weak TP and switches "God mode ON"...:)
And then cry on the forums that poker is rigged.
Betting 1/3 is too small. Look at the board. We aren't setting up to get stacks in so the "fact" that "one should" bet smaller in a 4-bet pot doesn't mean shit.
I agree that betting 1/3 might be a bit too small but that 1/3-1/2 shouldn't be bad. At least the point was clear (we shouldn't bet 3/4 or something like that here).
Fair enough, but why? I want to make an old-fashioned hand-defining bet here. "Get to know where I stand" if you want. Getting a 1/3 bet called means we are completely in the blue for the next street, whatever peels off. This is one situation where I adjust a little to "get information", silly as it may sound.
Originally posted by YohanN7
Fair enough, but why? I want to make an old-fashioned hand-defining bet here. "Get to know where I stand" if you want. Getting a 1/3 bet called means we are completely in the blue for the next street, whatever peels off. This is one situation where I adjust a little to "get information", silly as it may sound.
All of this is done with the good old 1/2 psb... 
Originally posted by YohanN7
Fair enough, but why? I want to make an old-fashioned hand-defining bet here. "Get to know where I stand" if you want. Getting a 1/3 bet called means we are completely in the blue for the next street, whatever peels off. This is one situation where I adjust a little to "get information", silly as it may sound.
Bigger bet is absoluately better for me. 1/2 pot is the nut worst betsize for this board I reckon.
It's tough for our 4bet range to miss this flop completely, even some of our worst bluffs have a heart in play. I don't think we miss this board with enough of our combos to have like an 75/25 Bluff-Value ratio that the smaller sizing allows. Also when we flop like this with (what I hope is) the bottom of our 4bet bluff range we can't get away from it and I'm delighted to play this for one or two streets as we have a hand that retains a lot of equity on turn vs sets but can lose a lot of equity once the river is dealt. Top pair, top set blocker, open ended blocker, 3rd nut flush draw, backdoor nut straight draw, the only downside is that we block JJ which often makes a lot of players calling range here and furthers the likelyhood that he has middle set or AK.
I like the bigger sizing for whole range even if it forces me to bet the same size with A9o with a or something to balance, I'm pretty happy here, bluffs that weak may not even be necessary if you take into account that this is a highly dynamic board and our value combos can easily go from 90% to 10% on the turn. For this reason we should checkback a lot of good hands and a lot of combo draws here but this hand at the bottom of our preflop 4bet bluff range is one of our big bets I think.
I should clarify that I don't think this spot warrants that much discussion yet as a developing player as despite my opinions I think each potential betsize will be negligible in EV and that all reasonable betsizes will be massively +EV regardless. Save your study for more important spots in my opinion.
Interesting, but you get one thing upside down. Smaller bets allow for fewer bluffs, not more. This, at least, if you are going by the one-street aplha approximation.
Originally posted by YohanN7
Interesting, but you get one thing upside down. Smaller bets allow for fewer bluffs, not more. This, at least, if you are going by the one-street aplha approximation.
I'm glad you alerted me to this in my first week playing cash games! Perhaps I'm calculating things completely backwards? I thought we cbet value for half-pot on flop 25% and villain must defend 67% to this sizing? We value bet for pot sized bet 33% and he defends 50%?
My understanding was for a pot sized bet, 33% value bet on flop, 45% value on turn, 67% value on river, with villain MDF being 50% on each street?
For smaller sizings surely this allows larger proportion of bluffs as villain is challenged to continue with wider (and weaker) range?
Is this completely backwards?
Not completely, but it is wrong enough to forget and relearn from scratch.
The river is easiest to analyse. Then, to a very good approximation, the odds you offer your opponent dictates your "correct" value/bluff ratio. If you offer him N:1 to call, the odds against you bluffing should be N:1. This means, for a 50% bet with N = 3, that you have 3 value hands for each bluff. That is, you bluff 25%. With a pot sized bet, it works out to 33% bluffs. Whatever villain is/should be doing is of no concern. Generally, smaller bets = fewer bluffs. The logic is easy in this case. With small bets, it is cheap for villain to call, he get good odds. He will, and should, be calling a lot. With N = 3, he needs to nip you off 25% of the time to be BE.
Adopting these calculations for earlier streets is called the "one-street alpha approximation". The numbers you quote for F/T/R are probably from a bluff stacking model. They are i m o quite wrong since you'd be c-betting about 150%, turn barreling close to 100%. Bluff stacking models have never been confirmed mathematically (and believe me, this is a horribly difficult problem, it requires a mathematician's professional effort, and I doubt that it is within human reach to prove the numbers).
Guys, sorry to bump this thread.
In spite of my GTO blabbering above, I have no longer a f-n clue about what is really the right play here. The reasons for betting small or big are, well, convoluted. It is like putting money in the pot just for the sake of putting money in "not to look weak". Can we just as well just check behind?
Betting this has a lot of fold equity. If villain doesn't have heart he will fold here. There is Th,Jh,Kh that block a lot of villains heard hands and I doubt he has many off-suit hands here. If we check villain will stab OTT with this whole range and we usually have to fold.
I think villains range could be JJ-QQ,AJs+,AKo maybe AQo.. So if we bet here only AhQh and maybe AK will call? So if villain folds that much isn't it autoprofit to bet here? And if we check we have difficult time OTT.
That was a piece of information, but I don't agree he'll stab 100%. If he is good, he should be very worried. Why the fuck did we check? There is absolutely no fold equity. What better hands is he folding to a 1/3 bet? A 32/3 bet? I am not arguing for checking, I am still asking. This hand is a nightmare. I hate it when I can't figure things out.
I'd certainly not automatically fold to a bet if I check. He shouldn't assume that either. Nobody gives up with initiative in a 4-bet pot. Nor am I. True "giving up" hands I always bet once here.
