X-post: STOP SAYING you are raising or betting for information!

[woohoo88]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
In that respect, yes, a block bet is defensive and a value bet. However, it is also in part an information bet.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think Gobo is arguing that a bet PURELY for information is not a good enough reason, however I think you could argue that all bets provide some sort of information.

[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly.

Listen to gobbo people. This is pretty important to understand. [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]

[Kimbell175113]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
In that respect, yes, a block bet is defensive and a value bet. However, it is also in part an information bet.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think Gobo is arguing that when you make a bad bluff, you'll soon find out that it was a bad bluff.

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm having trouble explaining it, but there's a distinction between the reasons for an action and the side-effects of an action. Or something like that.

[pudhu]

Great post gobbo. I really think that the content of this post will factor into situations in the near future for me.

I like the idea of considering a bet to be a bluff even if I caught a part of the board. The implications of this is that I will be a larger amount and i think this achieves three critical and advantagous things.

-you increase fold equity by decreasing pot odds
-if an inconspicuous card which imporves your hand hits on future streets, then you can value bet a larger amount or even stack
-more likely for opponent to slow down on future streets

I believe that you get information on every step of the betting process, whether you check or bet and betting and being called does not necessarily increase the quality of the information being given away. The information being seeked should be completely situation dependent and betting for information implies that you don't get information if you check, when in reality, checking may yield more relevant information in that situation.

[Funkert]

lmao...... had i checked this post 30 mins earlier it had saved me alot of money probably..... left a FT at 9th because i was betting for no reason in hindsight....

ah well, its a good read in clear language and i'll sure as hell try to remember it

[gobboboy]

A few things.

Continuation betting was probably once one of the biggest "secrets" of our arsenal. Does anyone else remember a time when everyone folded to them? It was a glorious time. Now, they basically are for metagame and it is a lot more important to realize when to use it instead of blindly using it every hand, but I still argue it is not a bet for information.

Someone in the thread in lower stakes MTTs made a very good point which will clarify a lot of the arguments:

Bets can give you information when your opponent acts against it, but a bet purely for information is a bet you wasted chips on.

The point I'm trying to make with this post is that you have so many ways to gain information about your opponent and ways of figuring out what the best play is, but by making a bet you can come up with no reason to do other than trying to figure out the best play in a hand, you're sacrificing both an action in the hand and a significant piece of your chips. Deep in the tournament when you have 25 bb's and you open raise with 88 from the button and the big blind calls you, there's 7 bb's in the pot. If the flop comes J75 and he bets 4bb's into you, what the hell are you going to do? Make it 12 bb's and fold to a raise?

An argument of "well I only do it if I have a lot of chips" doesn't work because those chips are just as precious early on as they are later.

Use your hand reading skills from betting sizes, reads on a particular player, timing tells, whatever you want but don't sacrifice the chips you have in order to gain information in a single hand when you could've used to the chips in order to do something else- like win the tournament.

[CobraGoat]

Though I disagreed with gobboa yesterday, this post is pure GOLD.

Quite often I find myself irked after reading or hearing someone talk about "betting for information" yet I have been unable to really articulate why the concept bothers me. From now on I will simply link to this post or hand people a flier of Gobbo thoughts.

Thank you sir.

[bookish]

There's a trivial answer as to why you bet for information, and a more complicated one.

If you raise, you get more information from your opponent, than if you check.

If you call your opponent can:
* Check the turn
* Bet the turn

If you raise your opponent can:
*Fold
*Re-Raise
*Call and check the turn
*Call and bet the turn

You are getting more information, because you are asking him/her more questions.

The more complicated reason is that your opponent apparently likes his hand a bit (or is bluffing small). Getting them to answer more questions allows you to determine whether they like their hand a lot (or is prepared to bluff more). This allows you to categorise their hand more accurately.

There are lots of other reasons why the play is right or wrong, but you are getting more information IMHO.

[CobraGoat]

You are not betting FOR information. You gain information no matter what you do. As Gobbo said, you are betting either for value or as a bluff. The information is secondary and not the reason for the decision.

[bookish]

[ QUOTE ]
You are not betting FOR information. You gain information no matter what you do. As Gobbo said, you are betting either for value or as a bluff. The information is secondary and not the reason for the decision.

[/ QUOTE ]

Firstly, as I suggested you get more information, cheaper, if you do raise. If you call and your opponent fires again what do you do? You've put no pressure on them, shown no strength so you have no further information about whether they are betting their KQ for value, or firing a second barrel with their AJ. If you raise on the flop you get that information.

If you play aggresively early, you get that information more quickly, and you have a much better idea on how to play subsequent (more expensive) streets.

[Sherman]

I said this in HSMTT, but I'll say it again here. You can call a bet whatever you want, but the fact is there are only three types of bets.

1) Bets with a positive expectation
2) Bets with a negative expectation
3) Bets with a zero expectation

And I think Gobbo's point is that so-called "bets for information" tend to be bets with a negative expectation.

Sherman