why you should squash the "what does betting accomplish" line in ssnl

[MasterLJ]

There's some good points in the OP, but it sounds like you've exchanged the "you must have a reason to bet..." with "bet to know where you're at."

I really don't like betting to know where you are at, because it's a recipe to be outplayed. Pot control generally means checking behind and re-evaluating. At SSNL checking behind gets your opponent to bet the next street A LOT, regardless of their hand. I wish PT had a stat (or maybe it does) that tells you how often an opponent bets when checked to on each street/next street.

I still believe you should only bet for value or to fold better hands (which covers a WIDE range of situations including c-betting).

[KeanuReaver]

i think there's a lot of merit to the WA/WB passive line, but i really think it depends on the player you're playing against. typically trying to out aggro a very aggressive player isn't a good idea as you'll put yourself in tough spots or lose a lot of value where he could have bluffed a lot of money away. at the same time, playing passively against a calling station you'll be losing a ton of value when he calls down with inferior hands.

[willw9]

Great thread, needed this for sanity.

[Freelancer]

You aren't betting for information, your betting when you 'know' your ahead against most of his range (say 80%) but that another card might kill your hand.

A lot of people than proceed to check because villain won't call with a worse hand, this is flawed logic because villains will often find a hand to call with so bet while your ahead (remember those hundreds of 'perfect' failed bluffs meh) and even if they fold its fine because you denied the option of a free card.

Now there are definitley situations where checking because your ahead but villain will very rarely call with a hand you beat is correct, however this comes up more often against opponents that don't call but raise/fold. At that point things get a lot more complicated so your basically forced to give them a free card with marginal (TPgkish hands) that cant stand a lot of heat. In general the advice in ssnl seems to be geared towards checking 'because nothing better' calls way to much.

Meh this is a difficult concept to get right and difficult to explain, I hope I clarified my idea's about this a bit.

[snakekilla88]

I made a thread on this on this awhile back
http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/sh...page=&vc=1

Kind of on the same lines you are talking about.

[MatthewRyan]

Cliff Notes: agression and betting > passive play in NL

[Redd]

I think this concept is easier to understand for players coming from a limit background, because it's a more fundamental part of +EV limit play. (if you're curious, this is because in limit play the ratio of current pot size:future pot size is larger compared to that of NL)

You can still make a +EV bet when villain has an exactly 0% chance of calling with a worse hand because of the equity they have in the current pot. If you check behind (or if you check OOP and he checks behind) 99 against UI overs that would have folded on a 368 flop, you are essentially giving Villain 15% of the pot in sklansky bucks. Plus whatever RIO we give when he hits because we've underrepped our hand.

The reason we're checking here is to try to induce him to make a mistake that's on average greater than the 15% pot plus RIO. If we can exploit Villain to usually bet big when checked to where he would have folded, at a certain betting frequency the value we get from his incorrect bet outweighs the cost of those 15% pot sklansky bucks. It's that point at which a check becomes more profitable than a bet.

Of course, things get more complicated when your check could also make villain think your turn bet is FOS and he calls with a losing hand that he would have folded to a flop bet (again inducing a more expensive mistake on Villain's part), or with runner-runners etc.

[_TKO_]

[ QUOTE ]
I think this concept is easier to understand for players coming from a limit background, because it's a more fundamental part of +EV limit play.

[/ QUOTE ]

I come from a limit background. I've spent the past 3 months painfully switching over to NL. In limit, betting is so default, and you don't have to think about more than a few bets at a time. It's pure value and small edges. My biggest problem is applying this concept to NL is that the bets quickly get bigger along with the pot. There's definately a "range" of correct bet sizes given an opponent's hand range. Betting too much or too little is virtually pointless.

In situations where I can't pinpoint the correct bet size, I find myself taking passive lines. This can't be right.

[Jojje_2k]

I have to change my style, I checks the turn like always with TkGK :S

[NoahSD]

White Rabbit is right.