wtf merge ldo????

[Nick Royale]

[ QUOTE ]
Nick its not about setting up a tiny push its about getting value.

[/ QUOTE ]
Yeah and as I said I don't think betting full pot is getting max value from villain's range. I might be able to be convinced otherwise but no one really makes an effort...

[pineapple888]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Bet sizing bro. POT/POT and it would only be a half pot bet on the river.

[/ QUOTE ]
How is this good betsizing? I agree the turn bet is too small, but I can't see why would we would like to bet huge on the flop/turn so we can set up for a tiny push on the river.

[/ QUOTE ]
sigh, rethink this plz. it should be obv why

[/ QUOTE ]
You'll have to tell me what you think so we can have a discussion. I think betting big, but not pot here is best. The board is low and draw heavy and we should bet whatever the draws/OPs are willing to pay. I think that 21-22 on the flop is good and 54ish on the turn, given that this player isn't a complete donk but rather taggy. This betsizing will still set up for an easy riv shove and extract the most from FDs and 99ish hands imo.

[/ QUOTE ]

Some thoughts:

1.) If you are going to keep him in, you can't pay him off, so I really don't know what you mean when you say "set up a river shove", when he's rarely calling three barrels without a hand that beats you.

2.) FD+overcards will pay substantially more than you are charging (his overcards aren't good, but he doesn't know that) when you combine direct odds plus implied odds. Overbetting the pot is fine here on both streets, although nobody ever does it for some reason.

[Imrahil]

Bet way more on the turn.

[Nick Royale]

[ QUOTE ]
1.) If you are going to keep him in, you can't pay him off, so I really don't know what you mean when you say "set up a river shove", when he's rarely calling three barrels without a hand that beats you.

[/ QUOTE ]
This isn't true, because my betsizing will still charge him out. His turn call with for example QJcc will be huge -ev. He's not calling the turn profitable with a fd even if he stacks me every time. Also keeping hands drawing dead/slim like TT/99 and A9s/98s is worth a lot.


[ QUOTE ]
2.) FD+overcards will pay substantially more than you are charging (his overcards aren't good, but he doesn't know that) when you combine direct odds plus implied odds. Overbetting the pot is fine here on both streets, although nobody ever does it for some reason.

[/ QUOTE ]
I think you're right about this, we can probably bet more than I suggsted and still get calls from fd+overs. I don't know if I actually pot the flop turn, but at least closer to pot than I suggested.

[pineapple888]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
1.) If you are going to keep him in, you can't pay him off, so I really don't know what you mean when you say "set up a river shove", when he's rarely calling three barrels without a hand that beats you.

[/ QUOTE ]

This isn't true, because my betsizing will still charge him out. His turn call with for example QJcc will be big -ev. He's not calling the turn profitable with a fd even if he stacks me every time. Also keeping hands drawing dead/slim like TT/99 and A9s/98s is worth a lot.

[/ QUOTE ]

[img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img] What does any of this have to do with the idea of "setting up a river shove" which is the concept I questioned? Paying him off because he called "incorrectly" on the turn is a really really bad way to think about this situation IMHO.

[Nick Royale]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
1.) If you are going to keep him in, you can't pay him off, so I really don't know what you mean when you say "set up a river shove", when he's rarely calling three barrels without a hand that beats you.

[/ QUOTE ]

This isn't true, because my betsizing will still charge him out. His turn call with for example QJcc will be big -ev. He's not calling the turn profitable with a fd even if he stacks me every time. Also keeping hands drawing dead/slim like TT/99 and A9s/98s is worth a lot.

[/ QUOTE ]

[img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img] What does any of this have to do with the idea of "setting up a river shove" which is the concept I questioned? Paying him off because he called "incorrectly" on the turn is a really really bad way to think about this situation IMHO.

[/ QUOTE ]
All I was saying is you can pay him of 100% and our turn/river play will still be profitable in the long run. I thought that was what you were questioning when you were saying "If you are going to keep him in, you can't pay him off".

Betting $55 making him call with a fd and then paying him off when he hits is better than betting him off a fd by making a too large bet. As said I agree we can bet more AND get paid by FDs.


Fwiw, if you bet $55 and you're also able to get away when the fd hits the play will become even more profitable.


[ QUOTE ]
What does any of this have to do with the idea of "setting up a river shove" which is the concept I questioned?

[/ QUOTE ]
It's setting up for a river shove when the draws missed, that's what I'm saying. If the fd hits you'll have to make a tough decision, but even if you pay him off 100% the turn/river combo will still be profitable.

[pineapple888]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
1.) If you are going to keep him in, you can't pay him off, so I really don't know what you mean when you say "set up a river shove", when he's rarely calling three barrels without a hand that beats you.

[/ QUOTE ]

This isn't true, because my betsizing will still charge him out. His turn call with for example QJcc will be big -ev. He's not calling the turn profitable with a fd even if he stacks me every time. Also keeping hands drawing dead/slim like TT/99 and A9s/98s is worth a lot.

[/ QUOTE ]

[img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img] What does any of this have to do with the idea of "setting up a river shove" which is the concept I questioned? Paying him off because he called "incorrectly" on the turn is a really really bad way to think about this situation IMHO.

[/ QUOTE ]
All I was saying is you can pay him of 100% and our turn/river play will still be profitable in the long run. I thought that was what you were questioning when you were saying "If you are going to keep him in, you can't pay him off".

Betting $55 making him call with a fd and then paying him off when he hits is better than betting him off a fd by making a too large bet. As said I agree we can bet more AND get paid by FDs.


Fwiw, if you bet $55 and you're also able to get away when the fd hits the play will become even more profitable.


[ QUOTE ]
What does any of this have to do with the idea of "setting up a river shove" which is the concept I questioned?

[/ QUOTE ]
It's setting up for a river shove when the draws missed, that's what I'm saying. If the fd hits you'll have to make a tough decision, but even if you pay him off 100% the turn/river combo will still be profitable.

[/ QUOTE ]

OK, you "can". But you shouldn't. It's even more profitable if you can get away from the hand when you are behind. Anyway, on to the next one.

[RainbowBright]

Turn bet size is fine for all the reasons Nick Royale said. At the same time, when your looking at determing the correct bet size it should not be in terms of whether or not a turn bet size makes it -EV for the Villain to draw to a flush....

Instead, you should weigh the value of your bet size against the Villain's entire range of hands and which will produce the highest EV. Because the turn card was a blank, than making a larger size bet might be best because the Villain will likely call a turn bet with the entire range of hands he called the flop bet. At the same time, a good Villain would likely fold his drawing hands on the turn realizing he's not getting good odds even with a could over cards.

Nonetheless, you obviously want to get the largest bet possible on the turn inorder to make the Villain feel committed to call a river bet with his made hands when the river blanks. But a pot size bet doesn't seem like too large of a bet on the river (which this current size one is).