good time for a combo bet v. a TAG? or do those bets not exist....

[VanVeen]

since this thread is still getting views and i don't know how much you guys read the msnl board..


all,

a river bet is preferable to a check when the sum of [%opponent folds * pot size - %opponent call with better * bet size] and [%opponent calls with worse * (bet size + pot size)] is greater than the expectation of a check. that's it. there are no other meaningful criteria (the vague notion of meta-game notwithstanding).

value bet, bluff, and 'two-way bet' are arbitrary terms denoting bet types. based on their usage it's easy to see that 'value bets' derive most of their value from having worse hands call (equation 2). 'bluffs' derive most of their EV from getting better hands to fold (equation 1). a 'two way bet' has a more even admixture of each. it is a fact that when playing against players who vary their strategy over time according to unknown variables that occasionally the best play against the set of their posited ranges is to make value bets that aren't profitable unless they occasionally act as 'bluffs' and vice versa. done and done.

claiming that there exist no opponents who will 'sometimes call with worse but fold better' is quite beside the point. such paradoxical chimeras exist as useful probabilistic abstractions.

(deleted irrelevant stuff)

[xxThe_Lebowskixx]

bldswters has to be the king of these bets.

[DJ Sensei]

-the long run is much longer than you think
-great players' styles are constantly evolving as well, so that their ranges are always difficult to accurately estimate. this prevents accurate specific equity calculations in thin situations like this, and makes intuition and creativity more important.

thus, much of thin betting (which is all i think this whole idea really is) is short-term guesswork. you can either play a solid game without these bets, and lower your variance (though potentially be an easier opponent to read later) or choose to accept the potential higher variance in exchange for a strong advantage over your opponents in the future (if/when you adapt to the new dance of your actual and perceived ranges better than they do)


so, i think that the concept of a "two-way bet" or "value bluff" is rather ridiculous, as you can't hope for both results to occur. its simply a thin bet one way or another, and the particular results are mostly irrelevant so long as the scale of future success exceeds that of possible short-term variance/loss.

[HP]

To be honest, I was very hurt I didn't receive more props for my sick burn Re: two-way bets in this thread

edit: upon further examination my burn doesn't really make any sense, and is lame, don't waste your time reading it

[feesjah]

[ QUOTE ]
since this thread is still getting views and i don't know how much you guys read the msnl board..


all,

a river bet is preferable to a check when the sum of [%opponent folds * pot size - %opponent call with better * bet size] and [%opponent calls with worse * (bet size + pot size)] is greater than the expectation of a check. that's it. there are no other meaningful criteria (the vague notion of meta-game notwithstanding).

value bet, bluff, and 'two-way bet' are arbitrary terms denoting bet types. based on their usage it's easy to see that 'value bets' derive most of their value from having worse hands call (equation 2). 'bluffs' derive most of their EV from getting better hands to fold (equation 1). a 'two way bet' has a more even admixture of each. it is a fact that when playing against players who vary their strategy over time according to unknown variables that occasionally the best play against the set of their posited ranges is to make value bets that aren't profitable unless they occasionally act as 'bluffs' and vice versa. done and done.

claiming that there exist no opponents who will 'sometimes call with worse but fold better' is quite beside the point. such paradoxical chimeras exist as useful probabilistic abstractions.

(deleted irrelevant stuff)

[/ QUOTE ]

i agree,

good post

[Alex-db]

A two way bet:

You have AdQd on a flop of 2c3d6d. Your predictable opponent called your raise preflop, so having not reraised you know his range is 88-QQ, AKo, AKs.

1) You bet the pot as a bluff against his AK hands, which have 53% equity against you but you expect he will fold them.

2) You are also betting for value against his pairs, since you have 52.5% equity against that range and you expect him to call.

Admittedly a little contrived but it answers the question of whether such a bet could theoretically exist.

[aggie]

Sometimes i'll make a bet knowing it's quite possible villian will call with a worse hand or fold a better one. I wouldn't be suprised if either occured. With that said, i'm always hoping for one of the two outcomes. Never both.

So yes, it is a two-way bet in that there are two possible favorable outcomes. But i am always focused on one of the two outcomes so i consider the bet either a value bet or a bluff (not both).

If i am bluffing and get called by a worse hand i got lucky. I certainly don't consider myself a genious for having made a 2-way bet.

[mikech]

[ QUOTE ]
A two way bet:

You have AdQd on a flop of 2c3d6d. Your predictable opponent called your raise preflop, so having not reraised you know his range is 88-QQ, AKo, AKs.

1) You bet the pot as a bluff against his AK hands, which have 53% equity against you but you expect he will fold them.

2) You are also betting for value against his pairs, since you have 52.5% equity against that range and you expect him to call.

Admittedly a little contrived but it answers the question of whether such a bet could theoretically exist.

[/ QUOTE ]

wtf, that's called a semi-bluff. 2way bets are made on the river with no cards to come.

here's my example of a 2way-bet hand: in a 6max 10-20 game and 2k effective stacks, you open-raise to 70 with A [img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img] 5 [img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img], villain 3bets on the button to 200, you call.

flop is J [img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img] 8 [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] 3 [img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img], you check intending to cr but villain checks back.

turn is 4 [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img], you pick up more outs so you lead for 400, villain calls.

river is A [img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img], now you just have a pair of aces with a 5 kicker, a shove here could be considered a 2way bet. AK/AQ of hearts might fold, giving you a set or AJ; TT/99 might call, putting you on a missed draw bluffing on the scare card.

[Alex-db]

It could -also- be a semi-bluff, but that is a -bluff- you would like him to fold every hand, but you know he will fold his weaker hands and call with his stronger hands so you are glad that even then you have a chance to catch up.

My example showed that particular bet was part bluff and part value bet because he is likely to fold stronger hands and call with weaker, and not a random mix between the two.

Your example isn't two-way, its just vague. He may sometimes fold stronger and call weaker, but thats more of a coincidence that the technique of the bet. Obviously if his read of you is missed draw he will call with TT and AK, if his read is a set he will fold them both. If your play is balanced, his calls and folds can vary and you have the illusion of a two way bet.

Note in my overly-specific example he folds when I have the worst hand and calls when I have the best hand, that's a two-way bet (its a shame non of this is useful strategically [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] ).

[drj003]

[ QUOTE ]
Because the board paired, a single pair you could have on the flop has less outs to outdraw the villain on the turn, allowing him to check behind a big pocket pair without much fear.

I think any bet you make here will defintely be a bluff. That being said, I think he isnt likely to have a T, and I think you get him to fold any pocket pair, so I like a bet here (as you are easily representing a T)

[/ QUOTE ]


Easy to represent a ten as a tag who called a reraise out of position? I wouldn't put him on a ten.