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

[whitelime]

The bet 100% exists as you define it ("sometimes worse will call, sometimes better will fold"). It's just your understanding of poker/game theory is weak and it makes it seem like you don't know what you're talking about:

"Okay, but let's say for instance that I bet this river. I have a decent approximation of his range, but I really don't know for sure. However, what I DO know, is that in this situaiton (or other similar situations), he will sometimes call with worse hands (Ax), and sometimes fold better hands (99, JJ-AA).

I can only guess at his hand range, however, I am sure that this bet will function in two-ways always in this situation.

How then, can this not be a two-way bet in this situation?

I don't know for sure ever if I am value-betting or bluffing in this scenario. See what I'm saying?"

When you say stuff like this, it seems like you understand what you're talking about from a definition standpoint, but are confused about how to apply it to a poker game.

You're only thinking half the equation here, the good half. OMG this bet has two good functions b/c sometimes worse hands call and sometimes better hands fold. Yeah, what about when better hands call? Just because a bet serves both functions of sometimes making worse hands call and sometimes making better hands fold, doesn't make it a +EV bet.

Basically, you need to understand that based on the frequencies of the possible outcomes that can happen, that a bet is either +EV or -EV in a vacuum (let's disregard future metagame EV right now). Try and just focus on this. Value bets, Bluffs, and "value bluffs" can each be +EV or -EV. This should be the deciding factor in the end on whether or not you make the bet (disregard potentially more +EV check/bets).

If you want to start factoring in future metagame, see strassa/jman's posts for the 2 biggest metagame advantages of making a "value bluff".

The way to determine what to do in your situation is to figure out rough frequencies of what he'll do with hands that beat/tie/lose to you, when you bet $x and when you check. Then calculate what the best play is. In 99% of situations, it's pretty obvious what the best play is, and every poker player I know intuitively makes his decisions (no one actually works out the math, though you should try it out once b/c it's something you should be able to do and I think it would help your poker/game theory a lot). In the situations where it's close, you can look to potential future metagame implications as a deciding factor in making a certain decision.

[paradroid12]

My post count will say I'm a noob, and I admit that I'm not a high level poker player, but I think I have a good grasp on theory, as it is discussed here (my problem is that I'm still refining my abilities to implement theory, ie defining accurate ranges for opponents and knowing how they will act on their ranges). That said, I hope you will give my ideas some consideration, as I think I have some things to say about the value-bluff.

I agree that a value-bluff does not exist against a rational opponent, but I think there are opponents against which it does exist. We'll take these one at a time. But first, what is a value-bluff?

As I understand it, a value-bluff is a bet that attempts to coerce an opponent into folding better hands than your holding and calling with hands weaker. For a value-bluff to exist, the INTENT of the bet must be that it causes BOTH of these things to happen, necessarily. Just making a bet with the HOPE an opponent will fold better and call with worse IS NOT a value-bluff. If it is, then almost every bet a fish makes would be a value-bluff. Consider that as we go on...

As I understand it, a rational opponent would take the following sort of action in deciding to call a hand:
1. He would establish a range of holdings for you.
2. He would determine the likelihood of given hands within your range (for example he may believe with the river bet you have a 60% chance of holding a hand stronger than his and a 40% chance of holding a weaker hand).
3. He would compare the strength of your range to the strength of his holding to the size of the pot (the pot is laying me 5-1 to call and I think I'm good 60% of the time, I call. The pot is laying me 2-1 and I think i'm good at a rate of 20% of the time, I fold).

Notice that I did not specify the rational opponent's holding. In the given example (with the TT77x board) he could hold AK or A7 and make this same evaluation. Therefore, if a rational opponent decides that AA is no good, he's going to fold it. If he decides AA is no good, then he's going to make the same decision about KK, 88, and every other hand of lower strength. Therefore, a value-bluff can not exist against this type of opponent, because he will not call with a worse hand than he folds. He will fold every hand that he believes to be +EV and fold every hand he believes to be -EV. The reason for this is that with a rational opponent, his holding does not influence his evaluation of the "facts" at hand (his range of hands for his opponent, the probability of each holding in the range, the pot odds). His evaluation of the hand may be incorrect, but his decision-making will stem from a rational approach. So, if he calls with JJ, he definitely would've called with better, but he may not have called with worse.

So, the bet may succeed in making a rational opponent throw away a better hand (thus it is a bluff) OR it may succeed in making a rational opponent call with a worse hand (a value bet), but if the opponent called with 9s, you can be sure he would've called with Jacks, and thus it can not succeed in making him throw away better hands than he called with.

However, not all opponents act rationally. A value-bluff can exist against an opponent whose hand strength determines his calling range. For example, say an opponent has felt as though he has been bluffed several times when he had a marginal hand, and has shown down losers when he has had relatively strong holdingings. If this opponent decides to act irrationally, he may be more willing to throw away a stronger holding and attempt to make a more "heroic" call with a marginal hand. The question against this opponent looks more like this ...

I'm the hero and I divide my villains range into two subsets: those hands that beat mine, and those hands that I beat. In order to win the pot against the first group, of course, I must make the villain fold. I then go about deciding the proper bet amount to induce a fold. Let's say that I calculate that the proper amount to bet in the situation to induce a fold from the villain is X. However, I am also aware that the villain my have a range of hands he will call with (especially given that the villain is prone to making a marginal call). So I must also decide what an appropriate amount to bet for value is. Let's say that considering the factors (along with the probability of my being beat if villain calls), I decide that the appropriate amount for a value bet is ALSO X.

So I bet X.

If I am correct in my assessment, the villain will now fold the hands in his range that have me beat, and will also call with the range of hands that I can beat. That, my friends, is a value-bluff. I bluff the pot from him when I am losing, and I show down the hand for value when I am winning. Furthermore, it is not an accident or divine providence that causes this to occur, it is rather a careful analysis of the situation that leads a hero to conclude that the bet size is proper to elicit the specific conditions the bet seeks to achieve.

I think much of the confusion on the topic has come from the nature of bet sizing as it relates to perceived hand strength. Sometimes there are conditions (meta-game, play of the specific hand, texture of the board) that make weak bets look strong and vice-versa. However, these are not necessarily value-bluffs. If you make a weak bet against a rational opponent, it should be either to portray strength (he will fold a stronger holding) or to portray weakness (he will call with a weaker holding than yours). A true value-bluff is the result of specific conditions, and because I don't think I have enough experience or knowledge to say how often such conditions arise (a particular bet amount will elicit the desired response from an opponent based on his holding), it seems that the extended conversation on the topic suggests that it's more than once every blue moon.

[Kala1928]

Its a very common occurance in poker when you are valuebetting/protecting and you actually should valuebet/protect your hand but you actually don't have the best hand. Stuff like KQ vs AK on a K-high board and your opponent is just c/c:ing you. This is a very simple example, and occurs quite often.
Most people just dont do it on the river very often(and/or generally dont valuebet on the river often enough) and I think its this type of player who invented the "two-way bet" because they feel like bet flop-check turn and then betting river with JJ on a 28K5Q board is a "bluff" or a "two-way bet" because you may infact be beat.
The thing is that if the way the hand was played out it seems your hand is still good there is no reason NOT to valuebet even when it doesn't really seem like you
a) wont get a worse hand to call or/because
b) you are "overrepping your hand"
If you never valuebet middlepair or second pair or whatever you are likely missing value against most opponents.
As long as your read on the hand is that your hand is good you should still bet (.. against most opponents..) for the odd occasion your opponent does call.

[EmpireMaker2]

[ QUOTE ]
bldswters has to be the king of these bets.

[/ QUOTE ]

prolly cause he was the most agressive 6max player ever?

[Mercury87]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Dave,

I think two-way bets really cannot possibly exist. I mean, think about it. That's basically saying that he's going to behave irrationally. Because it means that he'll call some weaker hands in his range and fold some stronger hands in his range. He only has one hand range here. Maybe you know what it is and maybe you don't, but in truth he has some specific hand range here. And if you assume that he always sets some threshold within that range and calls with hands stronger than that threshold and folds hands weaker (which is rational, it's not rational to fold stronger hands than some hands you call with, right?) then it is impossible to have a two-way bet. Either there is a +EV segment of his hand range that he'll call and that you beat, or there isn't. If there is, it's a value bet, if there isn't, it's a bluff.

It only SEEMS like it's a two-way bet, because it's a thin value bet or a thin bluff and so sometimes it goes either way. But this is just randomness and if it works out the way you wanted it to, that's because you got LUCKY. It is completely impossible for two-way bets to exist if your opponent plays rationally. It only seems that way because you have no idea what you're doing because you dont' know his hand range and you dont know how he acts with each segment of it. So you throw a bet out there, hoping to get lucky, and when you do you call it a two-way bet.

- TWP

[/ QUOTE ]

Two-way bets can most certainly exist.

There might be a 2/3rds chance he calls with AA-JJ here, and 1/3rds chance he folds. There might be a 1/3rds chance he calls with AK/AQ and 2/3rds chance he folds.

Imagine he makes his decisions by a 6-sided die. If 1 or 2 is rolled, and he has AA-JJ, he folds. If he has 3-6 he calls. If he has AK/AQ, and a 1-4 is rolled he folds, and 5-6 rolls he calls.

Thats sort of what happens with the human mind. Noticed that he cant call with AK/AQ in situations where he wouldnt have called with AA-JJ (from other outside random circumstances or thoughts in his head). But that doesnt stop you from getting value from AK/AQ part of the time, and bluffing out AA-JJ part of the time.

Its sort of a strange way of "covering your bases" depending on how curious he is feeling. You get value when he is curious sometimes, and you get him to fold sometimes when he is feeling cautious. Because you can never know for sure how curious/cautious he is feeling at that exact moment in time, it is therefore based on random chance based on what you know of his temperment.

[/ QUOTE ]

Interesting thread.

I don't understand this post. If your range is {JJ+ AQ+}, I see no reason to fold JJ+ a certain percentage if you call AK+ a certain percentage. It doesn't matter which hand you have; it only matters what your range is and with what hands you want to call. When you have AK, there's no reason to think "he could bluff me, so I have to call 2/6 of the time". Imo you could think: "my range is {JJ+ AQ+}; my opponents doesn't know which hand I have; I fold AK now but if I had KK I would have called. So I'm protected against his bluffs." You shouldn't be feeling curious with AK and cautious with QQ.

Or should I?