Understanding \"Small Pot\" and \"Value Bet\" conflict
 

Hi all,

I am new to NL but have won consistently at limit.

I am sure it is obvious to you experienced guys but I see a potential conflict with the 2 concepts above. I'd really appreciate it if you would help me understand better. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

I can see the logic of "small hand/small pot" but more than once on this forum the idea of "Value betting to death" has been suggested as being the key to a good win rate.

Is the "potential" conflict nothing more than picking our spots?

For example, versus a tricky solid player, we know that continuing to pound is only going to induce a fold or cost us a lot of chips if behind (small pot concept employed). However, against the guy who called 3 big post flop bets from me yesterday with TPPK when I had a set, I should be looking to play the same way with TP only?

Equally, against a solid player who checks the river OOP, I can probably assume that he either has nothing of real worth and has decided to give up or he has a medium strength hand with which he intends to call hoping he has induced a bluff. Against him, "value betting" a moderate hand will not be +EV but against the loosie who will call with 4th pair a bet has value.

Is this it or have I missed some important point(s) about when to inflate the pot rather than keep it small with a moderate hand?

Thanks all.

Trevor

Re: Understanding \"Small Pot\" and \"Value Bet\" conflict
 

unfortunatly it isnt as easy as if/else, it depends on the board, your opponent, and your image. best i can do is look over some hands for you as every situation is different.

Re: Understanding \"Small Pot\" and \"Value Bet\" conflict
 

I think this ties into what Ed Miller stresses in repeating that no-limit is a very fluid game. Many concepts are in play and some counteract each other from time to time. You are right, it comes down to weighing which factor best fits the situation at hand.

Re: Understanding \"Small Pot\" and \"Value Bet\" conflict
 

words of advice that came to me one night:

If you have to ask if you want the pot to be big, you don't want a big pot.

Nearly all of the value bet decisions should be coming in small pots; it is only the difference in a larger small pot or a tiny small pot.

Re: Understanding \"Small Pot\" and \"Value Bet\" conflict
 

I have a problem with this too. Say you have a big overpair, or a big TPTK, or a weak two pair, the board is full of draws and there are a lot of people in the pot... In order to protect your hand, you need to be making big bets.. i.e. somewhere between half and full pot. However, by the time the turn gets there, the pot has become huge due to all the players. e.g. you make a 4BB pf raise, you get called in 5 places.. pot is now 24BB, you bet 15BB on the flop, and get 3 callers, pot is now 84BB going into the turn and (assuming you started with 100BB) now have a massive pot with medium hand by NL standards.. This seems to be a recpie for getting stacked by a set.

Re: Understanding \"Small Pot\" and \"Value Bet\" conflict
 

in no limit sometimes u must risk giving free cards in order to control the pot.

Re: Understanding \"Small Pot\" and \"Value Bet\" conflict
 

Maybe this hand has some relevant points that I have questions on too. I had been raising a fair bit prior to this and getting folds to cbets so I wasn't surprised to get some playback and expected villain to have a Q, maybe a good 8 or better. When the board paired I am even more WA/WB so I tried to keep the pot size reasonable by just calling the turn despite the FD out there (I didn't think he would be the FD twice). I think I am still ahead of villain's range here and I probably missed a river value bet when he bets small however if he pushes I probably need to call. Questions - Call on turn ok? Need to value bet the river?

Party Poker No-Limit Hold'em, $ BB (5 handed) Hand History Converter Tool from FlopTurnRiver.com (Format: 2+2 Forums)

BB ($63.73)
Hero ($63.04)
MP ($30.55)
Button ($52.30)
SB ($19.27)

Preflop: Hero is UTG with K[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img], K[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img]. SB posts a blind of $0.25.
<font color="#CC3333">Hero raises to $2</font>, <font color="#666666">3 folds</font>, BB calls $1.50.

Flop: ($4.25) Q[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img], 8[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img], 7[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] <font color="#0000FF">(2 players)</font>
BB checks, <font color="#CC3333">Hero bets $3.5</font>, <font color="#CC3333">BB raises to $7</font>, Hero calls $3.50.

Turn: ($18.25) 8[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] <font color="#0000FF">(2 players)</font>
<font color="#CC3333">BB bets $8</font>, Hero calls $8.

River: ($34.25) 9[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] <font color="#0000FF">(2 players)</font>
<font color="#CC3333">BB bets $8</font>, Hero calls $8.

Final Pot: $50.25

Re: Understanding \"Small Pot\" and \"Value Bet\" conflict
 

[ QUOTE ]
in no limit sometimes u must risk giving free cards in order to control the pot.

[/ QUOTE ]

By free, do you really mean 0 or do you mean small bets that won't sufficiently protect your hand, but are still better than offering infinite odds?

The little green book and the new miller/sklansky nl book are in the mail.. hopefully they can help me sort this out [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

OT: Books
 

[ QUOTE ]

The little green book and the new miller/sklansky nl book are in the mail.. hopefully they can help me sort this out [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

I'd recommend getting Harrington on hold'em as well, it's geared towards tournament play, but there's a lot you apply to ring strategy.

Re: OT: Books
 

Pot control is really important, when you're playing deep stacked 10-20.

Re: Understanding \"Small Pot\" and \"Value Bet\" conflict
 

[ QUOTE ]
However, against the guy who called 3 big post flop bets from me yesterday with TPPK when I had a set, I should be looking to play the same way with TP only?

[/ QUOTE ]

Not really. If that was the minimum hand he will call down like that with, and if he might just let you do the betting for him with better hands, then TPTK isn't really ahead of his calling down range, is it?

Re: Understanding \"Small Pot\" and \"Value Bet\" conflict
 

[ QUOTE ]
I have a problem with this too. Say you have a big overpair, or a big TPTK, or a weak two pair, the board is full of draws and there are a lot of people in the pot... In order to protect your hand, you need to be making big bets

[/ QUOTE ]

With big draws and you with TPTK, you will lose more than 50% of the time.

An example:

Hero: Ad Qh
Opponent 1: 9d Th
Opponent 2: As 4s

Flop: Qs Js 7c

Survey says:

pokenum -h ad qh - 9d th - as 4s -- qs js 7c
Holdem Hi: 903 enumerated boards containing Qs Js 7c
cards win %win lose %lose tie %tie EV
Ad Qh 373 41.31 524 58.03 6 0.66 0.416
9d Th 183 20.27 720 79.73 0 0.00 0.203
As 4s 341 37.76 556 61.57 6 0.66 0.381

With top two pair on that same flop, you will lose more than 50% of the time.

pokenum -h qh jc - 9d th - as 4s -- qs js 7c
Holdem Hi: 903 enumerated boards containing Qs Js 7c
cards win %win lose %lose tie %tie EV
Jc Qh 417 46.18 486 53.82 0 0.00 0.462
9d Th 155 17.17 748 82.83 0 0.00 0.172
As 4s 331 36.66 572 63.34 0 0.00 0.367

Re: OT: Books
 

[ QUOTE ]
Pot control is really important, when you're playing deep stacked 10-20.

[/ QUOTE ]

Bump because this provocative line never got addressed...What do you mean exactly? Any of these could apply:

1. Pot control is unimportant in SSNL--getting value is more relevant
2. Pot control is unimportant in short-stack SSNL--If you somehow find yourself at a deep stacked 1/2 game live or something, start thinking about it.
3. Pot control is actually very important in SSNL--whether you are short, or your opponents, or both--Jamougha was just kidding.

Any of these could apply at any time to your particular table, but when in doubt a lot of good players seem to advocate thin value considerations over avoiding bloating the pot etc. Any consensus here?

Re: OT: Books
 

[ QUOTE ]
If you have to ask if you want the pot to be big, you don't want a big pot.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
in no limit sometimes u must risk giving free cards in order to control the pot.

[/ QUOTE ]

These are often overlooked concepts that take on more importance at each level.

Re: Understanding \"Small Pot\" and \"Value Bet\" conflict
 

[ QUOTE ]
in no limit sometimes u must risk giving free cards in order to control the pot.

[/ QUOTE ]
Where were you last week? You could have at least sent me a PM before I blew off 2/7 of my FT roll.

I've been trying this more in the last couple of days, both giving free cards for pot control and (less frequently) checking good hands for balance. I think it's bumping my winrate up. It also seems to mean that I'm facing more bluffs and thin value-bets, which is interesting to adjust to.

Re: OT: Books
 

Georgia,

I mean that the main thing at SSNL is getting value on your good hands. This is especially true with 100BB or less, where you're rarely making a big error by going to the felt with strong overpairs or a strong TPTK, especially when you're the one doing the betting.

Pot control is not a hugely important concept at SSNL IMO. The main things people seem to screw up are, not getting enough value on hands and not having a good understanding of whether their hand is strong or marginal given the board and their opponent's hand range/calling range (e.g. AA can be either a lock or a marginal hand).

sdf
 

Some interesting ideas in here. Wouldn't pot control be just as important in non-deep stack situations?

Re: sdf
 

[ QUOTE ]
Some interesting ideas in here. Wouldn't pot control be just as important in non-deep stack situations?

[/ QUOTE ]

No. To give an example, say you have 20BB effective stacks, and you have KQ on a K76 board in an 8BB pot. You might as well have the nuts. If you have 70BB you have something to think about and you can easily make large errors. If you have 250BB you now potentially need to be careful how you build the pot with with 76, especially against a good opponent.

Re: Understanding \"Small Pot\" and \"Value Bet\" conflict
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
in no limit sometimes u must risk giving free cards in order to control the pot.

[/ QUOTE ]

By free, do you really mean 0 or do you mean small bets that won't sufficiently protect your hand, but are still better than offering infinite odds?

The little green book and the new miller/sklansky nl book are in the mail.. hopefully they can help me sort this out [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

i mean free, making a small bet is just encouraging someone to test it with middle pair/top pair crap kicker.

Re: Understanding \"Small Pot\" and \"Value Bet\" conflict
 

[ QUOTE ]
Maybe this hand has some relevant points that I have questions on too. I had been raising a fair bit prior to this and getting folds to cbets so I wasn't surprised to get some playback and expected villain to have a Q, maybe a good 8 or better. When the board paired I am even more WA/WB so I tried to keep the pot size reasonable by just calling the turn despite the FD out there (I didn't think he would be the FD twice). I think I am still ahead of villain's range here and I probably missed a river value bet when he bets small however if he pushes I probably need to call. Questions - Call on turn ok? Need to value bet the river?

Party Poker No-Limit Hold'em, $ BB (5 handed) Hand History Converter Tool from FlopTurnRiver.com (Format: 2+2 Forums)

BB ($63.73)
Hero ($63.04)
MP ($30.55)
Button ($52.30)
SB ($19.27)

Preflop: Hero is UTG with K[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img], K[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img]. SB posts a blind of $0.25.
<font color="#CC3333">Hero raises to $2</font>, <font color="#666666">3 folds</font>, BB calls $1.50.

Flop: ($4.25) Q[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img], 8[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img], 7[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] <font color="#0000FF">(2 players)</font>
BB checks, <font color="#CC3333">Hero bets $3.5</font>, <font color="#CC3333">BB raises to $7</font>, Hero calls $3.50.

Turn: ($18.25) 8[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] <font color="#0000FF">(2 players)</font>
<font color="#CC3333">BB bets $8</font>, Hero calls $8.

River: ($34.25) 9[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] <font color="#0000FF">(2 players)</font>
<font color="#CC3333">BB bets $8</font>, Hero calls $8.

Final Pot: $50.25

[/ QUOTE ]

no this is a hand where you should be looking to get more money in. generally when a straight is impossible, fd is out and the only hand you can lose to is a set, you should look to build the pot assuming you only have 100 bb and he issnt an extreme nit.

again this isnt a set in stone rule but your will be v tp/fd a huge majority of the time with a set making up a very small minority.

Re: Understanding \"Small Pot\" and \"Value Bet\" conflict
 

a good example of being forced to give free cards in no limit to control the pot, 6 max nl 1/2

utg and mp limp, you make it 12 to go with adac, sb folds, bb and both limpers call, flop comes

8h jh qc($49)

its likely you have the best hand, and the board is very drawy so you definitly need to bet, its checked around to you, a good bet size would be 35, so you bet 35.

everyone calls, turn comes

2s($189)

checked to you again. without a very strong read that your at a table full of donkeys you really can not bet at this situation because any bet that wont induce a bluff commits your stack to 1 pair on a terrible board. its extremely hard to tell if someone already has you beaten, and even if they dont half the deck could easily beat you on the river, and u have very little shot at improving, so u should check behind here and if an obvious draw hits you have to let it go facing any big bets. id probably call a bet up to 50, as i dont have to be ahead that often to show a profit.

Re: Understanding \"Small Pot\" and \"Value Bet\" conflict
 

Thanks Younghov, you make great points. I knew I missed value here and I think the minraise on the flop threw me off a bit. As for getting the money in...more on the flop, turn, river, or all of the above? I think the turn because of the FD...failing that, the river for sure.

Re: Understanding \"Small Pot\" and \"Value Bet\" conflict
 

[ QUOTE ]
in no limit sometimes u must risk giving free cards in order to control the pot.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is an enormously overrated, absolutely correct statement, IMO. The "free card" is dangerous, yes, and a lot of players have it in their heads that giving a free card with a hand that figures to be ahead is a mortal sin that will earn you a one-way ticket to hell (read: poker failure).

I don't see this to be true. Pot control is so important, even with one-pair hands, and often trumps the principle of "protecting our hand" in importance. Here's an example:

Youre playing 100NL and open to 4 with AA from position and get two callers. The flop is J35. Check to you. You bet 8 and get one caller. There are now 28 in the pot. What do you put your caller on? A J is likely, but given the board, your opponent could be putting you to the test with any pocket pair, or a hand liek A5s or A3s knowing that from positino you could easily have AQ-AK, AT, KQ, etc. Your opponet could also have 46s or 24s, which you wouldn't want to give a free card to. Or your opponent could have JJ, 55, 33, or 35, in which case you're in some [censored].

The turn is a 9, same suit as the J. Your opponent checks, what should you do? I'd advocate checking as your standard play. Some would say this is dangerous. Now there are two straight draws on board and a flush draw. Or, if opponent has a hand liek 46 or 24, you're giving a free card. So shouldn't you bet to protect your hand?

I dont think so. It's unlikely that opponent picked up a flush draw with the 9, since the 9 is the same suit as the J. QT is highly unlikely for villain, and while 46 is in his range it's not as likely as a PP or a jack. Villain can also have 99, JJ, 55, 33, 35, or J9, in which case a check makes perfect sense to try to get you to value bet. If you bet and get raised, what the hell are you going to do now? You bet 22 and get popped to 50? now you're facing a 28 dollar raise with 100 in the pot. Can you fold? What about on the river? Even here, you rhand has showdown value, but you dont want ot get stacked with one pair.

IF you check the turn behind, you're not ever going to get stacked by a huge hand. BUT NOT ONLY THAT, you're also giong to extract value from a whole world of marginal hands. A5s, 88, 77, and also weak jacks are all the types of hands that fold to turn bets. They'll likely check the river and call an extra value bet thinkign your FOS if a blank peels off on the end. OR, people who were just floating the flop might fire a barrel as a bluff on the river which you can gladly call, OR some might think abotu value betting TT. OR, a set fires his value bet at you, you call, and he wins a pot thats much smaller than it could have been.

In general I dont think betting three streets with one pair is a good idea, and when checking the turn is likely to induce action from inferior hands, and control the pot against huge ones, I think it's something you need to really think about. If you think I'm out o fmy mind, try it and see how well it works.

Re: Understanding \"Small Pot\" and \"Value Bet\" conflict
 

[ QUOTE ]
Thanks Younghov, you make great points. I knew I missed value here and I think the minraise on the flop threw me off a bit. As for getting the money in...more on the flop, turn, river, or all of the above? I think the turn because of the FD...failing that, the river for sure.

[/ QUOTE ]

i raise the flop here v most opponents, tho v more agressive opponents who will fire the turn i raise almost any non spade turn

Re: Understanding \"Small Pot\" and \"Value Bet\" conflict
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
in no limit sometimes u must risk giving free cards in order to control the pot.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is an enormously overrated, absolutely correct statement, IMO. The "free card" is dangerous, yes, and a lot of players have it in their heads that giving a free card with a hand that figures to be ahead is a mortal sin that will earn you a one-way ticket to hell (read: poker failure).

I don't see this to be true. Pot control is so important, even with one-pair hands, and often trumps the principle of "protecting our hand" in importance. Here's an example:

Youre playing 100NL and open to 4 with AA from position and get two callers. The flop is J35. Check to you. You bet 8 and get one caller. There are now 28 in the pot. What do you put your caller on? A J is likely, but given the board, your opponent could be putting you to the test with any pocket pair, or a hand liek A5s or A3s knowing that from positino you could easily have AQ-AK, AT, KQ, etc. Your opponet could also have 46s or 24s, which you wouldn't want to give a free card to. Or your opponent could have JJ, 55, 33, or 35, in which case you're in some [censored].

The turn is a 9, same suit as the J. Your opponent checks, what should you do? I'd advocate checking as your standard play. Some would say this is dangerous. Now there are two straight draws on board and a flush draw. Or, if opponent has a hand liek 46 or 24, you're giving a free card. So shouldn't you bet to protect your hand?

I dont think so. It's unlikely that opponent picked up a flush draw with the 9, since the 9 is the same suit as the J. QT is highly unlikely for villain, and while 46 is in his range it's not as likely as a PP or a jack. Villain can also have 99, JJ, 55, 33, 35, or J9, in which case a check makes perfect sense to try to get you to value bet. If you bet and get raised, what the hell are you going to do now? You bet 22 and get popped to 50? now you're facing a 28 dollar raise with 100 in the pot. Can you fold? What about on the river? Even here, you rhand has showdown value, but you dont want ot get stacked with one pair.

IF you check the turn behind, you're not ever going to get stacked by a huge hand. BUT NOT ONLY THAT, you're also giong to extract value from a whole world of marginal hands. A5s, 88, 77, and also weak jacks are all the types of hands that fold to turn bets. They'll likely check the river and call an extra value bet thinkign your FOS if a blank peels off on the end. OR, people who were just floating the flop might fire a barrel as a bluff on the river which you can gladly call, OR some might think abotu value betting TT. OR, a set fires his value bet at you, you call, and he wins a pot thats much smaller than it could have been.

In general I dont think betting three streets with one pair is a good idea, and when checking the turn is likely to induce action from inferior hands, and control the pot against huge ones, I think it's something you need to really think about. If you think I'm out o fmy mind, try it and see how well it works.

[/ QUOTE ]

ni the example hand you layed out, id actually have to say that is a turn you should bet. the pot is not big and the board is great.

generally when your considering whether to bet or check behind 1 important think that should always be on your mind is:

if faced with a good sized riverbet if i check behind on the turn am i going to call

if yes its usually better to bet the turn, if not you should check behind

Re: Understanding \"Small Pot\" and \"Value Bet\" conflict
 

[ QUOTE ]

if faced with a good sized riverbet if i check behind on the turn am i going to call

if yes its usually better to bet the turn, if not you should check behind

[/ QUOTE ]

I think this is bad advice. Someone is giong to bet with a FAR wider range than they are likely to call with. If youre planning on calling a river bet, your opponent can be betting anything from the nuts to air, meaning you extract a substantial amount of value from a lot of weaker hands. When you bet the turn, you can, theoretically, get raised by weaker hands, but you can't really call anyway, and most of the time youre getting raised by better ahnds. Also, villain is going to fold all of his junk hands to a second barrel almost all of the time, so you lose the chance to extract value from that hand's blfuf on the end.

Re: Understanding \"Small Pot\" and \"Value Bet\" conflict
 

the purpose of checking behind isnt to induce bluffs its to keep the pot small when you are unlikely to improve, u have a 1 pair hand in a big pot, or cant be sure your ahead.

Re: Understanding \"Small Pot\" and \"Value Bet\" conflict
 

[ QUOTE ]
the purpose of checking behind isnt to induce bluffs its to keep the pot small when you are unlikely to improve, u have a 1 pair hand in a big pot, or cant be sure your ahead.

[/ QUOTE ]

Incorrect. That is ONE of the purposes of checking behind, sure, but two others are to (a) induce bluffs, and (b) extract value from weaker hands, which are now far more likely to call river value bets. Take 77 for example, which would likely fold to a second barrel on turn but can easily convince himself that you're just desperately trying to take the pot away on the river. TT is a similar circumstance.

Incidentally, if the only thing we were tryign to do was to control the pot, I WOULD prefer a turn bet, but because we extract all this extra value from (a) and (b) above, I think it's clearly the better play.

Re: Understanding \"Small Pot\" and \"Value Bet\" conflict
 

if your checking behind the turn in these situations your costing yourself a lot of missed bets, and pots when you get outdrawn

Re: Understanding \"Small Pot\" and \"Value Bet\" conflict
 

[ QUOTE ]
if your checking behind the turn in these situations your costing yourself a lot of missed bets, and pots when you get outdrawn

[/ QUOTE ]

Bleh, you're not getting it. It's just not a good idea to bet three streets with one pair. You don't really miss many bets, if any at all, because whatever bet you miss from a strong jack on the turn you pickup agian when your opponents bluff on the end or call your value bets with hands like 77. These are hands that would have folded on the turn, man.

Moreover, you're never going to lose your stack to a set or two pair, because you didnt inflate the pot with one pair.

Re: Understanding \"Small Pot\" and \"Value Bet\" conflict
 

This topic is so read dependent. I will bet all three streets vs a calling station donk or do any variety of betting options vs another opponent.

I also advocate the idea behind the turn check sometimes against a tricky opponent is that you don't want to bet "something" (you don't know if it's a vbet or you digging your own grave) on the turn and get bluffed off your hand that has showdown value. A tricky opponent can check raise the turn with a draw if he thinks you are weak. You don't want to be blown off your hand (that has showdown value) on the turn by betting and folding to a raise vs a tricky opponent.

Re: Understanding \"Small Pot\" and \"Value Bet\" conflict
 

[ QUOTE ]
This topic is so read dependent.

[/ QUOTE ]

agreed and I cannot emphasize enough that
everything in no limit is read dependent

There is no magic formula for playing every two cards given the board and number of opponents.

Play the players, not just the cards.

Re: Understanding \"Small Pot\" and \"Value Bet\" conflict
 

agreed, but when you think your ahead and trying to extract, betting should be your standard play and checking should be your balancing play

Re: Understanding \"Small Pot\" and \"Value Bet\" conflict
 

younghov- agreed.

By balancing you mean for the times you check the turn when you didn't hit?

Re: Understanding \"Small Pot\" and \"Value Bet\" conflict
 

yes, if your frequently checking these situations thinking your getting more value by inducing bluffs then you are costing yoruself money, however checking behind to induce bluffs a small % of the time to balance your play is fine. i stand by my general theory on pot control(again this is not a set in stone rule, there will always be exceptions)

**
generally when your considering whether to bet or check behind 1 important think that should always be on your mind is:

if faced with a good sized riverbet if i check behind on the turn am i going to call

if yes its usually better to bet the turn, if not you should check behind
**

Re: Understanding \"Small Pot\" and \"Value Bet\" conflict
 

I think this is one of the most frequently misunderstood topics at SSNL.

Jam is right on in this thread.

I have come to realize that pot control and value betting are not really in conflict. The basic thing is: the hands that you are controlling the pot with are not the ones that you are losing value from not value betting aggressively.

The most common way this comes up is when you have a marginal made hand. Say for example AJ on an A94r board. No sane opponent is going to call 3 streets worth of pot-sized value bets with a hand that is worse than yours. The "value" simply isn't there. If you get called down 3 streets, you are losing. There are maybe 2 streets worth of value to be had with this hand. So you play accordingly, perhaps by checking behind the turn to induce a river bluff (or in this case more likely a bet from a weaker made hand as well as the stronger ones), or whatever.

OTOH hand if you have A9 or 99 or 44 on this board, you can value bet more aggressively because hands like AK will pay you off. So with those hands you play a larger pot.

Basically what I am driving at is that typically our opponents will only put in a certain amount of money (call this $Y) with hands that are worse than X. So if we have X, there is no value to be had in bets that grow the pot beyond $Y. That is why we want to control the pot size.

Obviously this all depends on the board, because people will put in more money with both draws made hands on drawy boards, so $Y is higher for a given X.

Re: Understanding \"Small Pot\" and \"Value Bet\" conflict
 

<font color="green"> I think I may have found a hand that applies in considering checking the turn, but I'm not sure. Opponent is TAG w/ stats 24/8 over 200 hands. WtS 13.5. AF of 5/2/1.5 </font>
Party Poker No-Limit Hold'em, $ BB (6 handed)

Hero ($94.50)
SB ($103.50)

Preflop: Hero is CO with J[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img], Q[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img]. SB posts a blind of $0.50.
<font color="#666666">2 folds</font>, <font color="#CC3333">Hero raises to $4</font>, <font color="#666666">1 fold</font>, SB (poster) calls $3.50, <font color="#666666">1 fold</font>.

Flop: ($9) 3[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img], 6[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img], J[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] <font color="#0000FF">(2 players)</font>
SB checks, <font color="#CC3333">Hero bets $8</font>, SB calls $8.

Turn: ($25) 7[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img] <font color="#0000FF">(2 players)</font>
SB checks, Hero's action.
<font color="green"> Here's a spot I was really unsure about. Am I betting to protect my hand or am I behind? Am I correct in that this is someplace I want to consider pot control?</font>

Re: Understanding \"Small Pot\" and \"Value Bet\" conflict
 

this is a good hand to check behind, mainly because you could be dominated. with the a kicker id reccomend a bet here and seriously consider folding if raised, but with qj easy check behind, if the turn brings a diamond and u let him outdraw you just fold. thats the price u have to pay to manage the pot with marginal hands.