a concept i'm struggling with and when to apply it

[TxRedMan]

This post is about value betting the nuts and bluff value bets.


Recently i've been in spots with nut hands on the end where I was unsure about the correct bet size against certain opponents.

i.e., i make the nut flush on the river in a $1000 pot and my and opponent both have $1500 behind, and it's checked to me.

if I pot it, and he calls, then i made the perfect play. but lets say he only calls that bet 1/5 of the time. so maybe this frequency is what i use to determine my bet size. let's say he'll never laydown a strong hand when he's getting 4-1 to make the call. so, if i were to bet $300 into a $1000 pot, he's getting his predetermined correct price to make the call every time.

so, my $1000 bet makes $200 in this spot, and my $300 bet makes $300 everytime, which makes it the best long term EV bet.


let's throw in another variable. let's say i hold the nut full, and i put my opponent on an underfull, and the board has a flush on it. i think he's more likely to payoff a bigger sized bet with a full house than he would be if he were holding a non nut flush to my nut flush. so, in this instance i'll make a larger bet.


now, let's say that my opponents are smart, and that they begin to notice that I make bets that are most likely to get paid off when i hold the nuts.

how/when should i try to make these bets as a bluff?


example: holding the dry ace on the river, and betting an amount that seems like it will always get called. let's assume that i have some type of hand when i do this, but i figure to be behind most of the time, but sometimes i will be ahead. if this bet gains me any fold equity, then it's a very +EV play. Also, since i'm betting small amounts that are very likely to get paid off- the bet doesn't hurt me that much when it is called and i lose. I can still show down a hand that looks like my river bet may have been a very thin value bet.


So, i'm beting the same amount w/ my nut hands as I am w/ hands that figure to be behind at showdown, but could still look like a thin v-bet.



Now let's say this has gone noticed, and players have picked up on this.


What do you think the outcome would be if I started betting the pot more often, and stopped making small v-bets?


this is poorly worded i think, but maybe some posters can chime in and explain further what i'm getting at.


i think that determining bet size is so crucial in PLO. much more so than in NLHE IMHO.

i think that many more hands are priced into calling in PLO on the river, and I'm trying to figure out the best way to exploit this.

It will probably take me a year to gather some conclusive data, so maybe some of you guys w/ 1,000,000 PLO hands can help out here.


Is a small value bet w/ the nuts better than a PSB long term, against good competition? obv. there are different situations that can change this approach, and when a player calls liberally on the river a larger bet is best.


and if the smaller v-bets are better long term, has anyone had any luck attempting these as bluffs?

[Bill King]

i like making the larger bet, b/c in a perfect world your $300 bet will be called every time.. but thats simply not reality.

[BobAllinSki]

Generaly I try to bet an amount that will give my opponent a difficult decision, its not that I'm trying to put pressure on them, thats justa bonus, but an amount that gives an opponent a difficult decision is usually at the top end of what could be considered value and the bottom of what would work as a bluff so is much it easier to balance your value bets & bluffs when thinking this way.

Another factor that is worth considering are will your opponent raise a weaker hand, if so you really want to bet enough to make a raise commit him but not to much to scare him off making a raise.

[CrushinFelt]

Bluff value bets will turn into a leak unless re sure you are playingyou a against thinking opponents and that you have value-bet them before.

[CrushinFelt]

Also, there's a lot to be said for putting full pressure on your opponents when you make your hand. This sets up bluffs for full=pot on the river.

Basically if you are against opponents that are paying attention, then just bluff in whichever fashion you have been betting your nuts. If you've been potting the river, pot the river on a bluff. If you've been value-betting, value-bet bluff (the latter is less useful against tilty/stubborn opponents).

[wazz]

You have to be willing to bluff for full PSBs on the river (and occasionally show it) before you start to get much more action on your huge river bets. Once you do start getting action (assuming you're ahead), PSBs will start to scare people again. So revert back to 1/3 PSB for value and 2/3+ for bluffing. It's just a question of game theory, really, i.e. settling into any sort of pattern that's potentially readable is not a good thing.

[Bartholow]

Good post overall, and mostly I have nothing to add. But this struck me:

[ QUOTE ]
if I pot it, and he calls, then i made the perfect play. but lets say he only calls that bet 1/5 of the time. so maybe this frequency is what i use to determine my bet size. let's say he'll never laydown a strong hand when he's getting 4-1 to make the call. so, if i were to bet $300 into a $1000 pot, he's getting his predetermined correct price to make the call every time.

so, my $1000 bet makes $200 in this spot, and my $300 bet makes $300 everytime, which makes it the best long term EV bet.


[/ QUOTE ]

Are we assuming he does have some sort of "strong hand" every time here? Because I would assume that his 1/5 calling frequency of the big bet factors in some times when he just had a draw that missed etc. So even if we say he'll call the $300 bet 4/5 times, the math is getting much closer.

[piiop]

I dont have much to say about this other than that it's just dependant on other things specifically opponent read, board texture, previous action, your image, table history. I do agree that this spot is where a lot of players (myself included) miss value/bet a less than optimal amount.

[gergery]

Good post. The answer will surprise you. It will solve all your problems. I'll put it in white for you right here

<font color="white"> It depends </font>

So now you know.

-g

[Silent A]

I think a good starting point is to consider how often an opponent should call your river bet just to ensure that it isn't +EV for you to bet with any hand.

Generally, the minimum calling frequency for your opponent should be = (your bet)/(pot size before your bet + your bet).

This means that if the pot is $1000 and you bet $1000, if your opponent's call frequency is less than 0.5, it's +EV for you to pot bet ANY hand. If you're both playing a pure game theory approach, the best bet to make is the largest possible bet (i.e. a pot bet). Of course, this means your bluffs have to be pot bets too.

Naturally, most of your opponents will be biased towards calling more or less often than game theory would suggest. Plus, there are those who have biases towards calling smaller or larger bets. For example, some people are realative calling stations for 1/2 pot bets (call more often than the game theory optimal 2/3 of the time) while they fold to a pot bet more readilly than game theory says they should (calling less than 1/2 the time) and some people do just the opposite.

So the idea is to size your bet such that it preys on your opponent's biases (kind of analagous to Bluff's suggestion of forcing your opponent to make a tough decision). To me this means half potting against some opponents and full potting against others both as bluffs and value bets. Against a player like the one in the last paragraph this means value betting half pot and bluffing full pot (and the other way around for the opposite type player).

Hopefully, my opponents will see this as a random mix of pot and half pot value bets and bluffs. Obviously, if my opponents are smarter than this I have to randomize my betting somewhat (but still biased towards their calling/folding tendencies).