Nate's Theorem on the "Value Bluff"

[FBP]

I do think you're right about the valuebluff, but that it's so hard to see these spots correctly (+ they must be rare no?), that these bet have microscopic direct profit.

BUT, they have great indirect value, because when you'll get called by whatever hand villain has, he'll probably think you're in fact just a monkey randomly pressing button, and he'll go back to straightforward play + thinking he's the one taking your money, and THIS is very good for our bottomline.
For example, in high stakes games, a lot of the good regular put a lot of effort into looking fishy, and basically make small error to induce bigger ones from others. Well here i think this play can induce plenty of big error from villain and the play isn't even an error to begin with if done correctly.

So, I think these bets are awesome, now I just have to figure out when to do them.

P.S: As i think about it i see it's pretty much the same thing as adding shania, doing +EV bluffs, thin value bet... A profitable move that induce more profitable play later on by making you look like a fish to the fish. It makes sense though, that most of those concept we discuss on here in fact resort to sklansky theorem about the battle of error. So my post is just stating the obvious, still think it had to be done, if only for me.

[jkkkk]

I don't see how this theory helps us, unless it is purely intended to help people understand metagame concepts and the importantance of aggression and deception. Maybe it is just that, but I cannot see myself making a river decision and thinking

'hmm this would be a slim value bet, no wait, he might fold some hands that are beating me, after all I have no read, I'll bluff!.... no wait, its value bluff time!!!'

A river bet should be intended for either value or fold equity with metagame considerations, the fact that it can work both ways should not be the reason you are betting.

[Nate tha\\\' Great]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't see how this theory helps us, unless it is purely intended to help people understand metagame concepts and the importantance of aggression and deception. Maybe it is just that, but I cannot see myself making a river decision and thinking

'hmm this would be a slim value bet, no wait, he might fold some hands that are beating me, after all I have no read, I'll bluff!.... no wait, its value bluff time!!!'

A river bet should be intended for either value or fold equity with metagame considerations, the fact that it can work both ways should not be the reason you are betting.

[/ QUOTE ]

The practical application of my theorem is to help you to better assess the utility of potential two-way bets, particularly on the river. It's not uncommon to see replies to hand posts on the forums that are quite similar to the thought process that you cite above. For example:

"Well, that bet seems a little thin for value, but that card's pretty scary and I could actually see him folding some hands that you beat once in a while, so it's probably OK".

or...

"I'm not quite sure I like it as a bluff, but you do have some hand here and I could see some opponents calling you down with worse. Seems like it's worth the risk".

My argument is that this kind of thinking is usually fairly sloppy. If your bet is intended as bluff, the fact that it may get called down by worse hands once in a while it does not help its case, unless there are some plausible opponents whose calling range is wide enough that you are actually a favorite against them when called. Conversely, if your bet is intended for value, the fact that you might occasionally fold out a better hand cannot turn it from a loser into a winner unless there are some opponents who will fold more often than the pot odds that you're laying them.

[jkkkk]

I see what you are trying to say, but I don't like this line of thinking unless you are typically playing against a field of players that are continuously making horrible mistakes on the river. I think against, say your average random 5/10nl player online, you will see too many middling players who will call often with better and fold worse which will drag your EV down too much for this exploitation of the player spectrum to work.

[josh_x]

nate,

You are on the turn with a weak made hand. Your opponent likely thinks that you have a very strong hand. Your opponent can't have a huge hand (you know his tendencies well). You bet and he folds his good hands because he thinks you have him beat, but calls with his draws because he thinks he has implied odds. So you are bluffing him and value betting him at the same time right? or am i missing something obvious [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]

[Nate tha\\\' Great]

[ QUOTE ]
nate,

You are on the turn with a weak made hand. Your opponent likely thinks that you have a very strong hand. Your opponent can't have a huge hand (you know his tendencies well). You bet and he folds his good hands because he thinks you have him beat, but calls with his draws because he thinks he has implied odds. So you are bluffing him and value betting him at the same time right? or am i missing something obvious [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course you should bet, but this isn't the kind of case my theorem is meant to resolve. In particular, one of my unstated assumptions is that the opponent's weakest calling hand is stronger than his strongest folding hand. This is generally a safe assumption on the river, but it is often violated on the flop and turn, particuarly in deep-stacked games where nut-type draws have greater implied odds.

[Josh.]

[ QUOTE ]
more proof limit players are just smarter.

[/ QUOTE ]