Awkward hand means awkward river

[pokerkasper]

No, i´m not afraid of a higher flush. As i stated before, with less players in i would bet for value without regarding the quality of my flush. But with 5+ players in i would be cautious with my flush. Its not the nuts. I wouldn´t check it only because its a baby-flush. I would check this against a lot of players i meet in todays .25/.50 or .50/1. With 5+ players there is only a very slim chance that the 3-flush will be checked through. There are a lot players out who try to value bet or to make moves from the B or B-1. I simply give them the opportunity to do so, whe they are enough in number. When i instead lead out here it looks to scary to potential callers.
I would like to see a bet here from 2nd or 3rd position. Thats all. It´s less scary and i get perhaps more callers. If bet is from 2nd position and no other callers, i might only call because of the quality of my flush. I don´t want to be reraised here by the nuts. But if they are more callers i raise and don´t care for the nuts, because of the added dead money in.

As i stated before i don´t check this if i think opponents are in a passive mood and there is no stealer or tricky player out there.

[pokerkasper]

@Aaron
No reason to go tilt and miss the problem.

VB was first designed for medium or higher limits. I stated this because the concepts - when and what you VB - had to been adjusted to LLH in the last years. Whats your problem with this basic insight?

Pot Equity applies on every bet-(or raise-)decision, regardless if a hand is completed or not. It would be interesting to here from you, dear poker-friend, how you make your bet-decisions on the river. Especially your VBs. What do you consider?


Last, i´m here to talk about poker-problems and don´t care about "what everybody else means" here and there.

[tyler_cracker]

kasper,

if this is how you think, i guarantee you are missing value bets on the river (copout re: stealer or tricky player in late position included). something to think about while improving your game. hth.

[Zeldark]

I think you is gettin trolled hart.

[Aaron W.]

[ QUOTE ]
@Aaron
No reason to go tilt and miss the problem.

[/ QUOTE ]

Who is on tilt? You're just not making any sense.

[ QUOTE ]
VB was first designed for medium or higher limits. I stated this because the concepts - when and what you VB - had to been adjusted to LLH in the last years. Whats your problem with this basic insight?

[/ QUOTE ]

"Designed" for medium or higher limits? The concept of value betting is completely independent of the limits (and in fact, the style of poker being played). I don't know what "basic insight" you're referring to because it seems like you're going backwards and trying to deconstruct the notion of a "value bet" based on what you think people once did at "medium or higher limits" and that there was a time that "value betting" didn't exist in "LLH" (assumed to be "Low Limit Hold'em").

[ QUOTE ]
Pot Equity applies on every bet-(or raise-)decision, regardless if a hand is completed or not. It would be interesting to here from you, dear poker-friend, how you make your bet-decisions on the river. Especially your VBs. What do you consider?

[/ QUOTE ]

Define "pot equity". Maybe that might clear things up a bit.

Regarding your question, in a heads up situation, you consider the range of hands with which villain will call. If you are ahead of approximately 55% of those hands, then you can successfully bet for value.

As pots become more multiway, the estimation becomes much more complex as you are behind more often yet get called by more hands. I have worked through a number of calculations based on various assumptions, and the best estimates I've seen so far is to treat it as if you were heads up.

[ QUOTE ]
Last, i´m here to talk about poker-problems and don´t care about "what everybody else means" here and there.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you're thinking about it in your own head, you can use whatever words you want to describe whatever situations you choose to consider. But if you want others to understand what you're saying, it's important that the same language be used.

[tyler_cracker]

[ QUOTE ]
I think you is gettin trolled hart.

[/ QUOTE ]

maybe you're gettin levelled. OOH FACE!! [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]

anyway, if he's a troll, i guess he wins. at losing.

[pokerkasper]

You don`t understand me. I usually value bet. I have no problems with value betting. The only thing i say: there are exceptions. I think here is one of those exceptions where not value bet might be more profitable. Only because a lot of unfavorable conditions come together. Thats all.

I´m a little bit surprised about some pointless reactions about this here. I know that a lot of people value-bet on the river as auto-move regardless of the situation due to simplifications in a lot of must-read-books. Nice for you. Congrats. Well learned. Keep betting.

I think Value-Betting is all about conditions. I´m very sure about this. And because I have not so much time, we all made our point and there is not really a profitable or deep discussion here about this i think we should drop it.

One reply comes to Aaron.

[pokerkasper]

@Aaron

You know what i mean.
When the concept of value betting has been developed there were no Micro-Stakes, and no Theory about Small-Stakes Holdem.
Adjustments have been made to MS and SS. Why its important i stated in some posts before. Because of simplified VB-concepts for lower stakes, ignoring and not discussing exceptions and dynamic changes in conditions. Conditions changes in the course of time. For example if playing-styles changes playing concepts change their values.

Example:
If you play against players who have "learned" to checkraise the best hand on the river (it doesn´t matter here if its good or bad play) and you value bet your weaker hand on the river, you are the guy paying off in the long-run due to the raise. So the players who learned to checkraise on the river make your "learned" play of value-betting not profitable. But you learned that value-betting is profitable and you don´t realize that you lose by your play against the checkraisers.

-----
Don´t ask me to explain Pot-Equity. I think you know exactly what i mean and if i should err read some books again.

By the way:
Pot Equity is the only tool you have to figure out a bet or a raise. Nothing else you explained when you talk about your heads-up decision. I dont understand really your multiway decision process but you have a clear bet if you have enough pot-equity to figure out a bet.

I cap it here. I have no gains from further discussion of basics.

[OziBattler]

[ QUOTE ]
I have no gains from further discussion of basics.

[/ QUOTE ]

Fine. There is not reason for this thread to remain open then and therefore it is thus locked. Im sure all readers of this thread will read it logically and sensibly. pokerkasper, I look forward to your contributions in other threads.

btw if you think Aaron is on tilt you are very much mistaken. you dont know Aaron like we do.

[OziBattler]

unlocked by popular demand. Dont turn it into a trainwreck please.