Getting it all in on the river at 10NL / 25NL

[ev_slave]

There's a good article up on the 2+2 internet magazine about pot to stack ratios found here.

My question is for those who play well in 10NL and 25NL: when you have a hand that you're certain is the best, you plan your earlier streets to get the pot to a certain size so you can get it all in on the turn or river.

What stack does a Villain typically need in relation to the pot to be willing to get it in on the river? Will most call or bet AI on then end when they have ~2/3 of the pot? I've had little success with 1:1 stackot ratios being willing to get AI on the river, and if villain has a deep stack (100+ BB) it's hard to get him down to a .5:1 ratio since it becomes hard to build such a big pot without him knowing it.

So if you have a general idea of the "average" stack size a villain is willing to put into middle compared to the size of the pot existing at the start of the river, I'd appreciate the help. Once us middle-of-the-road 2+2ers get that number and can establish a goal, I feel we'd be able to solve it backwards and bet better on flop/turn and get the most value possible out of big hands.

[robinmbuk]

I would have to say that it is player dependant, and it also obviously largely dependant on the strength of villians hand.

I have seen people fold to a river shove thats only like a 1/2 psb, although it's very rare. I think thats because some fish just play until their buyin is gone, and they fold because they want to play a few more hands... sounds stupid but this is probably how some recreational (ie fish) players think.

I think the gneral aim should be for them to have just under 1 psb left on the river, but the less they have in their stack compared to what's in the pot the better.

You should bet as much on each street as you think they will call.Even like and extra $0.60 on the flop could be all it takes to pot commit them by the river due to the way bets rise expontenialy (spelling???) on subsquent streets. The retail industry has made extra $$s for years by pricing something at $9.99 instead of $10, because psychologically $9.99 sounds like more than a cent less than $10. So say $5 may be too much for villian to call, $4.85 might be fine even though there's very little difference.

[Gelford]

Who told you, that overbetting the river is forbidden ???

[ev_slave]

[ QUOTE ]
Who told you, that overbetting the river is forbidden ???

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not saying anything's forbidden, I'm just trying to get a standard strategy for the most common situations. Will deviate from said strategy on a case-by-case basis. So, perhaps a response that's a little more helpful?

[Nogatsira]

Try to get a read on your opponents hand, the more he has, the more you can overbet.
Also depends on who likes to call down alot, even at big bets etc..

[HighSteaks]

To me the board and the villain determines how much I try to get into the middle. I went through a stage where I was blowing people out of the pot- I finally realized that I could gauge it by either his seeming willingness to get money into the pot, eg. he holds a set and you hold a str, or the board eg, paired board, flush board etc and you hold a monster- I don't think there is a mechanical way around this one. That tool that Phil is going to release any time in the software forum will be good for this- we will be able to examine boards where we successfully went on to get the money in.

web page <<<free btw

[Sunny Mehta]

Hi ev_slave,

We actually have a chart in the book called "Betting To Get All-In" which lists different lines for getting all-in by the river for different stack-to-pot ratios. For example, if you have an SPR of 4 (meaning you have 4x the pot on the flop), a line of pot-pot will get you all-in on the turn.

To use your specific example - you are saying that the opponents inherent to YOUR typical games won't call a full pot sized bet on the river with a wide range of hands, but will call a half-pot bet. So for you, it sounds like an SPR of 8.5 would be perfect. That would mean you'd be able to go pot - pot - half pot and be all-in on the river.

So, the next step is simply to figure out how you can constantly set your hands up so you're playing an SPR of 8.5 - you can do that by tailoring your pf raises or by tailoring your buy-ins. (We incidentally have a chart in the book for this as well. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] )

Say you have 100bb - well then a pf raise to 5bb will give you an SPR of [95/11.5 =] 8.3 assuming you get only one non-blind caller. If you can get players to call with the range of hands you want them to when you raise to 5bb, you are ALL GOOD. If they won't, you can raise less and hope for more callers, or you can buy in for a little less than 100bb.

So that explanation should be a good starting point for you - you can work out the specific addition numbers yourself. We go into a lot more detail about this whole topic in the book. Hope you enjoy it.

-Sunny

[CobraGoat]

personally, the hardest part of getting all in is the early street raising and betting, PF and F specifically. in uNL we ascribe to the 4xBB+1BB for each limper theory, personally i do the pot button+1BB for each limper. in any case, for sake of ease w multitabling we are left with a very constricted starting point. And i have yet to see a PF betting strategy (this may be moot point at uNL due to the unobservance of most opponents) that allows for deception in PF bet sizing beyond, make the same size bet every time.

In DS's NLTAP he makes the point of sizing your PF bets based on the kind of hand you have to control pot size from the beginning. and that goes something like, raise bigger with speculative hands and smaller with hands (Ak, AQ) that are good to win small and medium size pots. however, in practice, it becomes real obvious real quick what you are doing when you only bet pot PF sometimes but bet 5-6BB PF other times. so bottom line, thinking of pot control and size before the flop is a cool idea i understand but i just dont get how to apply it well.

then we have the flop and the cbet sizing v. value bet sizing problem. this basically boils down to do you want your cbets to look like your value bets (for deception purposes) and sacrifice the ultimate size of the pot with your money hands or do you not care and bet smaller w your cbets and pot your value bets when you are trying to chunk up to get all in? i realize you can deal with that by altering your standard cbet but again, when multitabling that is not always the easiest thing to do.

[ev_slave]

[ QUOTE ]
Hi ev_slave,

We actually have a chart in the book called "Betting To Get All-In" which lists different lines for getting all-in by the river for different stack-to-pot ratios. For example, if you have an SPR of 4 (meaning you have 4x the pot on the flop), a line of pot-pot will get you all-in on the turn.

To use your specific example - you are saying that the opponents inherent to YOUR typical games won't call a full pot sized bet on the river with a wide range of hands, but will call a half-pot bet. So for you, it sounds like an SPR of 8.5 would be perfect. That would mean you'd be able to go pot - pot - half pot and be all-in on the river.

So, the next step is simply to figure out how you can constantly set your hands up so you're playing an SPR of 8.5 - you can do that by tailoring your pf raises or by tailoring your buy-ins. (We incidentally have a chart in the book for this as well. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] )

Say you have 100bb - well then a pf raise to 5bb will give you an SPR of [95/11.5 =] 8.3 assuming you get only one non-blind caller. If you can get players to call with the range of hands you want them to when you raise to 5bb, you are ALL GOOD. If they won't, you can raise less and hope for more callers, or you can buy in for a little less than 100bb.

So that explanation should be a good starting point for you - you can work out the specific addition numbers yourself. We go into a lot more detail about this whole topic in the book. Hope you enjoy it.

-Sunny

[/ QUOTE ]

Sunny,

Thanks so much... that's exactly what I was looking for! As you see I started thinking on it based on your "preview" article, and the purpose of the question was indeed to figure out the most natural looking bet sequence to get the ratio I wanted by the river. Your analysis was very helpful - an excellent starting point for sure. I am very much looking forward to the book.