Theory question. Maybe boring.
 

Do you think it makes sense to bet this missed flop in order to create proper odds to see the river card after a missed turn? I wasn't specifically going for a "free card" on the turn although happily it worked out that way. I was thinking if the turn missed I would need odds to draw and see the river.

PokerStars 0.10/0.20 Hold'em (6 handed) Hand History Converter Tool from FlopTurnRiver.com (Format: 2+2 Forums)

Preflop: Hero is CO with J[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img], Q[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img].
UTG calls, <font color="#666666">1 fold</font>, Hero calls, Button calls, SB completes, BB checks.

Flop: (5 SB) 8[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img], 2[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img], 6[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] <font color="#0000FF">(5 players)</font>
SB checks, BB checks, UTG checks, <font color="#CC3333">Hero bets</font>, Button folds, SB calls, BB calls, UTG calls.

Turn: (4.50 BB) 4[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img] <font color="#0000FF">(4 players)</font>
SB checks, BB checks, UTG checks, Hero checks.

River: (4.50 BB) 9[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] <font color="#0000FF">(4 players)</font>
SB checks, BB checks, UTG checks, Hero checks.

Final Pot: 4.50 BB

Re: Theory question. Maybe boring.
 

Bona,

1. Betting now to improve your odds later is ALWAYS a mistake if betting now is -EV.

2. Your bet here is not -EV, nor is it a mistake. You made money on your bet because of your equity edge.

Re: Theory question. Maybe boring.
 

Theoretically, a -EV bet doesn't become +EV by changing your odds to draw later in the hand. You still lose money on the bet. Were this such a situation, checking would be preferable. Fortunately, it's not. You have a clear +EV bet here with the flush draw.

Re: Theory question. Maybe boring.
 

Let's start with:
raise preflop -- I think we have a good hand here vs any number of opponents

Also, this is not a good example, because you can call a bet on the turn because you have overcard outs too. A better example, would probably be HU where we know we must improve to a flush, and implied odds do not exist.

Having said that, the argument that betting to give yourself odds on a later street is flawed. If you put money in a pot on a given street it's either a value-bet, or a bluff/semi-bluff. Assuming you were not going to call the turn if the pot size did not increase, then putting in a bet on the flop lowers your turn expectation. The idea is: you have no stake in the pot when it was small, so you really do not care to be putting bets in it. When the pot is bigger, you have a small stake in it. Each street is viewed in a vacuum, because it does not matter where those bets came from.

Not sure if this makes sense?

Buzz

Re: Theory question. Maybe boring.
 

Thanks- my take away is that thinking about setting up river odds is not productive so I should have been focused on the present bet. But then but I have some difficulty understanding how we define "equity edge".

Pot equity because there is a small amount of dead money in it?
Implied equity because I have overcards and the flush draw?
Fold equity with 4 to act of which 3 had checked ahead?

Is it some combination of those or am I missing the point? Should I be able to calculate it or is it intuitive with experience?

Re: Theory question. Maybe boring.
 

The equity edge here is that you are 35% to make your flush by the river, which will likely be the best hand, and you are putting in 25% of the money.

Fold equity has to do with the chance that all of your opponents will fold so that you pick up a pot of size X. If there is a 1 in X chance they will all fold, then the bluff is good. This is not the case with 4 villains in your hand.

Re: Theory question. Maybe boring.
 

He's better than 35%, though. His Qs and Js are worth something, too.

Re: Theory question. Maybe boring.
 

[ QUOTE ]
this is not a good example, because you can call a bet on the turn because you have overcard outs too.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes. I missed that in play so I made 2 mistakes on the same play [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]

You and others are saying the bet was +EV though in light of the drawing potential and the number of opponents (implied equity?) Am I getting that right?

Re: Theory question. Maybe boring.
 

Let's take the pot out of the question for now. Just answer this. Let's say it's just you and 3 guys. If you win, you win 3 bets. If you lose, you lose 1 bet. You expect to win 35ish% of the time. Is this a good wager for you?

Re: Theory question. Maybe boring.
 

OK I think I get this. Now to hang onto it.

But your anser makes me think I have had a misconception about pot equity. I have always thought if for example: only one of three villains folded that in itself improves my pot equity (from 25% to 33 1/3%) but I am hearing that all villains must fold for that to happen?