good time for a combo bet v. a TAG? or do those bets not exist....

[kotkis]

Two-way bets vs. rational opponents don't exist.

[Ansky]

[ QUOTE ]
Two-way bets vs. rational opponents don't exist.

[/ QUOTE ]

ya u def win the argument vs strass and durrr

[luegofuego]

thread over i guess.

if u perceive a bet to be neutral EV in a vacuum but plus EV for image reasons, u should obviously make it.

[MDMA]

I firmly believe that the actual usage of "two way-bets" does not in fact exist. You have two ranges; your opponents and your own. The only thing of interest is the INTENTION of the bet, i.e what you consider the MAIN PURPOSE of your bet, the achieved effect you want. Because of this, you can only either valuebet, or bluff. You either bet for value, or you bluff, based on what you perceive to be your opponents calling range.

Yes, ranges DO overlap and thus hands that are within that overlapping range will create an illusion of two way bets, i.e when you bluff with your "best" bluffing hand and he calls with his worst calling hand, but that is purely an effect of overlapping; the INTENTION is still always just value or bluff.

The only exception would be rare circumstances where for example you assume that you in fact have an inferior betting range compared to his calling range, but where you can make a small bet that you feel will induce a bluff so often that what you make out of calling his checkraise bluff (or the like) is MORE than what you lose all those times the opponent simply calls you.

Thus, two way-bets only exists in terms of RESULT, not really as in terms of intention, and thus I really believe the whole usage of the term is pretty nonsensical.

[TheWorstPlayer]

FWIW, I agree with strassa and durr, too. Just not that it's a two-way bet. It's a thin bet (be it a value bet or a bluff) so YOU DON'T KNOW WHICH ONE IT IS. But it is still only one of them. It's a good bet, because either way it puts pressure on your opponent to make the right decision and since it's a thin bet then it's hard for them to make the right decision IN THIS INSTANCE. But since it's a thin bet, they really can't go wrong either way probably since by definition, thin bets are just about 0EV. If you wanna call it an 'indifference bet' bec you're indifferent between whether they call or fold pretty much, given their hand range and your hands strength which is pretty much in the middle of their range, then fine.

Basically I'm saying that your hand is good JUST ABOUT 50% of the time when called. So yea, occasionally some guys will fold a slightly better hand and some guys will call with a slightly worse one. But overall, the bet is probably 0EV in a vaccuum (but does make you harder to play against overall) so you think it's 'two-way'. But it isn't. It's really closer to neither a vb nor a bluff than it is to being both. But really it can only be one.

edit: yea, luego made this post in one sentence. [img]/images/graemlins/frown.gif[/img]

[DLizzle]

oh come on TWP you know you want to call it a two-way bet.

[PHiLLeDINGUE]

[ QUOTE ]
I firmly believe that the actual usage of "two way-bets" does not in fact exist. You have two ranges; your opponents and your own. The only thing of interest is the INTENTION of the bet, i.e what you consider the MAIN PURPOSE of your bet, the achieved effect you want. Because of this, you can only either valuebet, or bluff. You either bet for value, or you bluff, based on what you perceive to be your opponents calling range.

Yes, ranges DO overlap and thus hands that are within that overlapping range will create an illusion of two way bets, i.e when you bluff with your "best" bluffing hand and he calls with his worst calling hand, but that is purely an effect of overlapping; the INTENTION is still always just value or bluff.

The only exception would be rare circumstances where for example you assume that you in fact have an inferior betting range compared to his calling range, but where you can make a small bet that you feel will induce a bluff so often that what you make out of calling his checkraise bluff (or the like) is MORE than what you lose all those times the opponent simply calls you.

Thus, two way-bets only exists in terms of RESULT, not really as in terms of intention, and thus I really believe the whole usage of the term is pretty nonsensical.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think that's exactly that...

The bet is simply a realy thin bet, end of the story. Sometimes it goes one way sometimes it goes the other way, but what's important is what your intention were

[dlpnyc21]

ok, so there seems to be a somewhat divided sentiment, with the majority thinking a two way bet is hogwash. However, I know for sure that if I make a bet at this river, I know it's with dual intentions. I tend to agree with strassa on this one, but that's why I posted it in the first place. Some good discussion so far. The bottom line is in hands like this I know if I bet I will sometimes get worse hands to call and sometimes better hands to fold, so I know my bet will always serve two purposes. It's really quite in the middle here for me.

The second part of this thread was to ask advice on this particular hand. What do people think of betting here?
dlpnyc21

[9cao]

[ QUOTE ]
Two-way bets vs. rational opponents don't exist.

[/ QUOTE ]

There really shouldn't be an argument here.