Am I missing value bets?

[OziBattler]

edit: this is for hand 2

I would have just donked the flop as DR says. I dont like the flop CR given that MP called because as kerowo says "it just drives weak K's into calldown mode".

After betting the flop this hand plays entirely differently.

[Xhad]

[ QUOTE ]
Because the pot is so small, it requires Hero to be ahead more often to make a value bet correct than if the pot were larger. As it lies with 3.5 SB in the pot, Hero is laying himself 3.5 to 1 odds on a bet. For this to be for value that means that Hero needs to have the best hand about 22% of the time.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is basically completely wrong. It is true that a smaller pot should make hero less inclined to push marginal holdings, but you can't just convert the pot odds and decide hero has to be ahead 1/n of the time to value bet, even if you're ignoring the possibility of checkraising.

[Smurph64]

*grunch*

In both cases yes. With the ace on the board I wouldn't have raised the flop myself. With both blinds in the hand cheaply either one could have the 3. So unless I have one helluva book on MP3 I am gonna check the flop, then raise or reraise the turn if no action happened on the flop.

But you made the play that you had the ace so you have to bet it out in my books. The bet on the turn will likely have them both fold and that is preferable for you than just checking and hoping they both miss the river.

Hand 2 you did a good check raise to see if they had a king, if either of them did they would have reraised. After that don't be afraid of your kicker sucking now. Bet it out.

[feroder_zb]

If it is true that small pots should make a person less inclined to push margninal holdings, but it is not because of the reason I stated above, could you please explain why it is then - I'd appreciate some math unless of course the reason is mostly unmathematical. And where did I go wrong in my analysis? Thanks.

[freedom18]

It depends on the types of opponents you are playing against for hand 2. If they are passive they'll pretty much call down with anything but even they fold to a donk bet. Alot of these marginal holdings are read dependent, we instantly release to any aggression a majority of the time.

Betting out we have to be good only 1 out of 3 times to show profit. I usually bet out hands with Middle pair etc, but once u get several callers or one caller you have to reevaluate. You don't want to waste much time working small pots until you have solid reads in which to reap small benefits from them

[DrModern]

[ QUOTE ]

Hand 2 you did a good check raise to see if they had a king, if either of them did they would have reraised.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think this is sort of questionable. If they do have a king, it is just too likely that a CR is going to put them into call-down mode.

See my posts below.

[Xhad]

Feroder: The hole in your reasoning isn't mathematical per se, you're just not using all the variables, and using some of them incorrectly.

Let's say it's HU on the river, your lone opponent checks to you, and he has exactly 1BB in front of him. Assuming his calling standards don't change, there is no mathematical reason to change your decision based on the size of the pot. You bet if you're winning half the time he calls you, and not otherwise.

The reason the size of the pot matters in earlier rounds is because the smaller the pot is, the less you're missing out on by conceding it even with the best hand. While if the pot is bigger, it's less expensive to get involved with a second best hand because you win more when you're right, or when you draw out. I can't really include much specific math here because there are so many it-depends-es, starting with how your opponents are likely to play their hands based on your action.

Something else to look at: http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showfl...rue#Post5502053

[Smurph64]

I agree that a bet instead of a check raise makes more sense in his position.

But in either case you are betting they don't have a king and so have to play the hand to river with raises if you only get called down.

If I lose in either situation, then at least I learned that a kicker is important and pretending you have one isn't going to help you when you need it.

[Big Jon]

Grunching

Hand #1
Bet the turn. Bet the river. You're good. No one showed any aggression and you don't want to give them any free cards to beat you. They've probably just got overs or gutshots to a wheel. The [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] on the turn puts a two-flush on board. Do NOT NOT NOT let them see the river for free. You give infinite odds to anyone with two hearts to outdraw you.

Hand #2
Why check the flop and run the risk of it being checked through? Bet. Why check the river? Value bet, YHIG.

[Big Jon]

[ QUOTE ]
Because the pot is so small, it requires Hero to be ahead more often to make a value bet correct than if the pot were larger.

[/ QUOTE ]
The EV of the bet has nothing to do with the size of the pot. Your EV on the bet is a function of how much it should make in the long run. If Hero has the best hand 50% of the time, the EV of the bet is 1:1. If he has the best of it 75% of the time, the EV of the bet is 3:1. That has nothing to do with the size of the pot. The only time pot size comes into play is fold equity, but when you value bet, you're obviously not looking for a fold. Pot odds only come into play when you're debating a call or raise, not a bet. Judge the EV of the bet before you lead out. If it's negative, check. If you're bet into, then you can sort out your pot odds.