STOP SAYING you are raising or betting for information!

[ZeeJustin]

[ QUOTE ]
Keeping the semantics theme alive, that bet is a bluff. The reason we turned our hand into a bluff was for reasons your example stated. It still is a bluff though.

Just because you turn a made hand into a bluff doesn't change the fact of what it is. Whether it be a good one or a bad one is NOT the point. Whether meta implications or table dynamics make you choose this line IS the point.

[/ QUOTE ]

WTF?! How can it be a bluff if no worse hand ever folds? Do you even know what a bluff is?

Edit: I guess intentions are important here, so I should clarify that the bettor has no intention of ever getting a better hand to fold, and is quite sure that no better hand ever will.

[PrayingMantis]

[ QUOTE ]
You are clearly exploiting fold equity. In the scenario you describe, the bets on earlier streets are required to create fold equity on the river.

[/ QUOTE ]

What do you mean "exploiting fold equity"? It doesn't make a lot of sense to describe things this way, IMHO. When I push river big % of my equity (if not all of it), is what we call "fold equity". That is true. However, the previous bets are not "exploiting fold equity". They are bets that are meant to build the pot as that on the river I'll have the biggest possible pot I can possibly push into profitably and win it uncontested (river is obv a bluff). However these 2 earlier bets are definitely not value bets or bluffs in any normal sense.

[aislephive]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Keeping the semantics theme alive, that bet is a bluff. The reason we turned our hand into a bluff was for reasons your example stated. It still is a bluff though.

Just because you turn a made hand into a bluff doesn't change the fact of what it is. Whether it be a good one or a bad one is NOT the point. Whether meta implications or table dynamics make you choose this line IS the point.

[/ QUOTE ]

WTF?! How can it be a bluff if no worse hand ever folds? Do you even know what a bluff is?


[/ QUOTE ]

It's still a bluff, albeit a poor one. Also those assumptions are pretty radical and for that reason I don't think they can be used as examples.

[Bakes]

Plus people don't usually bluff to fold out worse hands. ZJ even edited his post too, lol.

[bluesbassman]

[ QUOTE ]
Ok, here is an undeniable example of a bet that is neither a value bet nor a bluff:

You played some crazy crap from utg preflop, and now have the best hand on the river. You are 98% sure your opponent has 5 high. If you are wrong, he most likely has you beat and will definitely call if he does. He will never call you when you have him beat.

You bet anyway, just to avoid showing your hand down. You don't want the table to know about the crap you played UTG for image purposes.

[/ QUOTE ]

In this scenario, you are sacrificing showdown equity in the current hand to (hopefully) increase even more both your showdown and fold equities in future hands. But you are nevertheless betting to maximize an identified equity, even if it's in a general sense.

I suppose it does become a matter of sematics once we move from future streets to future hands.

[aislephive]

[ QUOTE ]

Edit: I guess intentions are important here, so I should clarify that the bettor has no intention of ever getting a better hand to fold, and is quite sure that no better hand ever will.

[/ QUOTE ]

I can see your point, and again I just don't think these examples are practical given that there is almost no situation where these rules can be applied.

[jlocdog]

Well if I am betting to protect my hand, then I have to assume that I have the best hand >50% of the time, no? If not, I am not protecting anything. I am bluffing [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

And just because the value in your bet is in the FE of your hand does not take away that your bet contains value. Again, it just has to do with avoiding a less optimal situation on later streets. Funny cause this concept is usually viewed in a limit setting but does come up in NL too.

I guess the reason I view this argument in a black n white setting is that with gray comes absolving oneself of responsibility in their motives all too often. I will concede that there may be more then two types of bets IF the person knows why they are doing what thy're doing. Not always the case though....

[PrayingMantis]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Ok, here is an undeniable example of a bet that is neither a value bet nor a bluff:

You played some crazy crap from utg preflop, and now have the best hand on the river. You are 98% sure your opponent has 5 high. If you are wrong, he most likely has you beat and will definitely call if he does. He will never call you when you have him beat.

You bet anyway, just to avoid showing your hand down. You don't want the table to know about the crap you played UTG for image purposes.

[/ QUOTE ]

In this scenario, you are sacrificing showdown equity in the current hand to (hopefully) increase even more both your showdown and fold equities in future hands. But you are nevertheless betting to maximize an identified equity, even if it's in a general sense.

I suppose it does become a matter of sematics once we move from future streets to future hands.

[/ QUOTE ]

This hand has nothing to do with future hands. I'm not sacrificing any showdown equity at this current hand. I'm building a pot in order to bluff it big on the river and take it down vs. a weak opponent which I have good read on. The bets on flop and turn are neither bluffs or value-bets, unless you insist on combining all of my bets during the hand together, and call them all something like "bluff continuum" or "pre-bluff" bets. And still they are not bluffs or value bets in the normal sense (i.e, the sense that takes into consideration your hand, your opponent's hand and the board).

Edit: seems like I replied to the wrong post. My points are still valid, in case of any future reply by bluebassman. But it's about the "building a pot" example, and not ZJ's one. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]
OK, too tired now to follow this thread.

[gobboboy]

The valuebetting post in response to curtains last night is a terrible one I now see. I definitely was not thinking clearly when I wrote that one. For all intents and purposes it probably should be erased from your minds.

Eagles, I like your post. Simple and basically what I tried to say in my post.

Also I am very very happy to see where this thread has gone, theory talk is fun. [img]/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img]

[ZeeJustin]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Ok, here is an undeniable example of a bet that is neither a value bet nor a bluff:

You played some crazy crap from utg preflop, and now have the best hand on the river. You are 98% sure your opponent has 5 high. If you are wrong, he most likely has you beat and will definitely call if he does. He will never call you when you have him beat.

You bet anyway, just to avoid showing your hand down. You don't want the table to know about the crap you played UTG for image purposes.

[/ QUOTE ]

In this scenario, you are sacrificing showdown equity in the current hand to (hopefully) increase even more both your showdown and fold equities in future hands. But you are nevertheless betting to maximize an identified equity, even if it's in a general sense.

I suppose it does become a matter of sematics once we move from future streets to future hands.

[/ QUOTE ]

There's more to poker and equity than just show down equity and fold equity.

You can even bet out of spite. You can bet in a dry side pot when you know you are drawing dead. The equity comes from the spite of pissing off someone you hate. What's that? Value bet or a bluff?

What if someone has a gun to your head and tells you to bet, and you bet to save your life?

What if you misclick and bet a hand in a spot where no worse hand ever calls, and no better hand ever folds?

What if you raise to impress the girls behind you that know nothing about poker and think good players are the ones raising?

What about a straddle preflop? You are raising without looking at your cards. Value bet or bluff?

What about posting the big blind. Technically that's a forced bet, which is still a bet. Value bet or bluff?

It is just retarded to classify every single bet ever made as a value bet or a bluff. There are COUNTLESS potential reasons to bet, and they don't all involve one of your two over simplified definitions of equity.