.
Notifications
Clear all
8 replies
Maybe a small bet on river is in order, like third pot to target two pairs or pairs that get stubborn. If you get raised you are most likely up against higher straight or flush and can bet/fold.
Thin value bets don't make that much sense when in position.
What stubborn pairs are we targeting here? If we bet small and fold vs a raise, it will push our EV down close to 0.
Originally posted by la55i
What stubborn pairs are we targeting here? If we bet small and fold vs a raise, it will push our EV down close to 0.
Might get a call out of something like 89,86,65 or even sets that BB can have in my opinion.
Originally posted by la55i
Thin value bets don't make that much sense when in position.
Since when ? 
Originally posted by la55i
What stubborn pairs are we targeting here? If we bet small and fold vs a raise, it will push our EV down close to 0.
Ok now I see Lemon isn't the only one who has been drinking last night ♦
Of course you can value thin that river come on.
Originally posted by Gianzzurri99
Originally posted by la55i
What stubborn pairs are we targeting here? If we bet small and fold vs a raise, it will push our EV down close to 0.Might get a call out of something like 89,86,65 or even sets that BB can have in my opinion.
But I asked about pairs that are stubborn. The hands you listed are all 2pair+.
Originally posted by MyFloXyBabY
Originally posted by la55i
Thin value bets don't make that much sense when in position.
Since when ?
Okay maybe I said it a bit wrong. If we have a very good hand and we think villain doesn't call a bigger bet but we could value some weaker hands with smaller sizing, of course it is good. But if we are a bit unsure about our strength and fear getting raised and we would have to fold vs that raise, then I just prefer checking behind. The reason is that when we bet something like sub 25% of the pot and have a nice chance of getting raised, then our EV isn't super awesome and it gets closer to the EV of a check.
Do you get my point? If we have the nuts then by all means bet small. If we are afraid of flushes and higher straights and will fold to all raises then imo don't bet.
You can check that kind of spots with solvers and tell me the EV difference of a check and some sub 1/4 pot bet sizes.
I might be totally wrong here you know.
Originally posted by la55i
Okay maybe I said it a bit wrong. If we have a very good hand and we think villain doesn't call a bigger bet but we could value some weaker hands with smaller sizing, of course it is good. But if we are a bit unsure about our strength and fear getting raised and we would have to fold vs that raise, then I just prefer checking behind. The reason is that when we bet something like sub 25% of the pot and have a nice chance of getting raised, then our EV isn't super awesome and it gets closer to the EV of a check.
Do you get my point? If we have the nuts then by all means bet small. If we are afraid of flushes and higher straights and will fold to all raises then imo don't bet.You can check that kind of spots with solvers and tell me the EV difference of a check and some sub 1/4 pot bet sizes.
I still find it quite confusing about a few things.
First if we have the nuts we'd bet big, not small.
Second not all thin value bets are small bets.
Third you talk as if you are fearing getting bluffraised a lot whereas it's not in the population tendencies at all to do that here so the bet/folding line here is no problem at all (in fact the problem would rather be him maybe raising a 7x), moreover some people would even donkbet their made flushes, capping them even more.
Doing the sim for that spot would thus be weird as villain plays here quite far from GTO (and maybe hero too, is A7 a flop check sometimes ? Well, possibly in fact but whatever) but I wouldn't expect a solver to advocate betting small frequently here. If you only allows small bets though, expect it to use it a lot imo.
(There is a talk in last Janda's book about why it's sound to risk reopening the betting for a low value IP even though it's not about the same type of spot.)
Originally posted by la55i
I might be totally wrong here you know.
I do know quite well, I'm used to talking with you 
Badoum tchhh ! 
Haven't read that part of Janda's book but maybe I should, because I really want to know why it is sound.
But I do agree with you that since the population doesn't really raise as much as they should, then the argument about folding so much vs raises loses its value.
Regarding some of your other points.
1) I agree with you, unless we figure out that villain would not call a big bet there and a smaller bet gets more calls and higher EV
2) in my reply to your reply I said I might have said it incorrectly the first time. In my later reply I did not use the term thin value bet, I talked about small bets?