bet sizes to maximize profits, and minimize losses (intresting)

[mike4you]

Ive been thinking alot about this myself lately,. and heres what I came up with: Put yourself in thier shoes, lets say you raise 3xBB and your oppenanant calls, the flop comes Q 9 3 now there are 7.5BB in the pot( assuming neither of u wer eform the blindes) what size of bet wouldNT you call with a 9 there, most would probobly fold an A9 there, figureing there behinde against a large part of your range. you probobly wont get a fold on the flop from anything better than a JJ, especially at that stake, top pair= all in for most of tthem there.

Also, you could bet like 10-20% more ( in realtion to the pot) when you have a hand then when you dont, like if you have AK raise and pair the flop, bet the pot, when you miss bet 75-80% of the flop. this sounds to obvoius and exploitable, but if you never show a hand they cant be sure if thats whats going on. Espacielly at micro stakes players jsut arent that oberservant or paying that much attention to be able to single out this strategy.

at those stakes, multiway pots are very common, because people jsut wanna gamble more/ dont know better. over calling on the river with top pair, and limping with suited paint is so common, that if you fins urself i na multiway pot with a hand, you may want to jsut check it, because even the hands that " You Know" they dont have like J7 or 95 are very possible.

hope this helped abit.

[Gonso]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

And your statement "half pot never gives him odds for calling with any draw." is wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

True, but it does give the wrong odds to almost all draws. If the pot is heads up it rarely gives a player the correct odds to hit on that next street. You'd be giving 3-1 on a call so only big combo draws would have the right odds.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wrong for NL. Implied odds matter. They matter alot. 3-1 is nothing to lay if your opponent(s) is/are one(s) that will give you substantial action when you hit.

[/ QUOTE ]

That would mean your play on future streets is poor, not that your bet size was incorrect.

[/ QUOTE ]

Deucethree, you’re way off here and completely missing the concept of implied odds.

I can tell you that betting half the pot on the flop is generally NOT enough, if your intent is to chase someone off of a decent draw (unless the effective stack sizes are very low). If you're in the habit of letting good draws go everytime you can play one in position for 3-to-1, you're absolutely folding too many hands.

Let’s look at a very simple example to illustrate why:

In a 1/2NL you pick up Ts9s, raise 3.5bb from the CO, and get called by the BB. Each of you have $200 behind. The flop comes A52 with two spades, and the BB leads out for just over half the pot ($8). Pot odds say you need a little more than 4-to-1 to call and try and hit the turn, but you’re just going to fold because you’re only getting a little under 3-to-1??

If you hit, you hardly have to get any more money in to make your flop call correct. You have two more betting rounds to get around $10 out of the guy to justify your play. Even more, you might get quite a bit more. He might stack off with a set or so if you’re fortunate.

If you were making a turn call and he had no more money, that's a different issue because there are no implied odds. But here you have a reasonable amount of equity and you're only getting a little bit less than even pot odds would dictate is call.

In regular practice, betting half the pot or less on the flop is suicide and just begging to get outdrawn. You're simply not charging opponents enough to draw, and not protecting your holding enough.

Then, for the times they do hit, how will you avoid putting more money in the pot to justify their call? Are you going to check/fold every time a scare card comes maybe? Also, do you see how this will further restrict your ability to value bet on later streets? When the third heart peels off on the turn, it's going to be more difficult to know where you stand. C-betting half the pot certainly won't chase off a flush draw... ok, so now you have a k-high board with AK and are getting action. Now you're guessing.

I'd highly recommend rethinking your position a little bit, and then go online and see what kind of flop bets the better players are making in the med-higher limit games, especially over at UB.

[mr_hanky]

Good post, well explained. Thats what I was trying to say when I put:

"half pot never gives him odds for calling with any draw." is wrong.

lol,

[g4rb0]

[ QUOTE ]
You should try to make them call unprofitably with the bottom of their range, profitably with the top, and break even about 2/3 of the way up, if you think they're drawing.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think your point you made is absolutely brilliant, but can you explain what you mean by this sentence a bit more please. ta

Steve

[rufus]

Assuming you're heads-up, the half-pot suggestion has merit on the flop:

On the flop, with implied odds for (at least) half-pot raising again on the turn if the draw misses, a half-pot raise works out to being a break-even choice for the opponent looking for around 12-13 outs - this is a super-strong drawing hand like a straight/flush draw where your opponent can respond to just about any raise by going all-in rather than calling. (And, in fact, fold equity suggests that opponent should do so most of the time.)

Thus, a raise of half-pot against a draw makes calling an incorrect move. The possibility of bluffing, negative implied odds, and the potential for 'false' scare cards suggest the ideal raise may be a bit stiffer.

Because there is only one card to come, there is much less value to going all-in on the turn with a draw. As a consequence, the correct bet against a draw is probably going to be a bit larger than pot.

[Mook]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You should try to make them call unprofitably with the bottom of their range, profitably with the top, and break even about 2/3 of the way up, if you think they're drawing.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think your point you made is absolutely brilliant, but can you explain what you mean by this sentence a bit more please.

[/ QUOTE ]

There's a chart in NLHTAP that explains this point perfectly (it's the S-curve chart).

Basically, most people will (correctly) call with very weak hands when the bet is a small % of the pot, and (correctly) fold all but the very strongest hands vs. massive overbets of the pot. But by the FTOP, you want people to play incorrectly, which explains why very small and very large bets are generally not optimal.

You want to find the "sweet spot" where betting any more will not fold out too many more hands, but betting any less will invite many more hands to call. Usually this happens around a bet size that will make your opponent fold the weakest 70% of their holdings and call or raise with the best 30% - thus the 2/3 reference earlier. You can't calculate "where" this point is in terms of $ since it varies widely from game to game, but in general, 1/2 pot isn't enough as it encourages calls from hands you'd rather see fold - i.e. it isn't "far enough up the curve".

Mook

[deucethree]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

And your statement "half pot never gives him odds for calling with any draw." is wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

True, but it does give the wrong odds to almost all draws. If the pot is heads up it rarely gives a player the correct odds to hit on that next street. You'd be giving 3-1 on a call so only big combo draws would have the right odds.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wrong for NL. Implied odds matter. They matter alot. 3-1 is nothing to lay if your opponent(s) is/are one(s) that will give you substantial action when you hit.

[/ QUOTE ]

That would mean your play on future streets is poor, not that your bet size was incorrect.

[/ QUOTE ]

Deucethree, you’re way off here and completely missing the concept of implied odds.

I can tell you that betting half the pot on the flop is generally NOT enough, if your intent is to chase someone off of a decent draw (unless the effective stack sizes are very low). If you're in the habit of letting good draws go everytime you can play one in position for 3-to-1, you're absolutely folding too many hands.

Let’s look at a very simple example to illustrate why:

In a 1/2NL you pick up Ts9s, raise 3.5bb from the CO, and get called by the BB. Each of you have $200 behind. The flop comes A52 with two spades, and the BB leads out for just over half the pot ($8). Pot odds say you need a little more than 4-to-1 to call and try and hit the turn, but you’re just going to fold because you’re only getting a little under 3-to-1??

If you hit, you hardly have to get any more money in to make your flop call correct. You have two more betting rounds to get around $10 out of the guy to justify your play. Even more, you might get quite a bit more. He might stack off with a set or so if you’re fortunate.

If you were making a turn call and he had no more money, that's a different issue because there are no implied odds. But here you have a reasonable amount of equity and you're only getting a little bit less than even pot odds would dictate is call.

In regular practice, betting half the pot or less on the flop is suicide and just begging to get outdrawn. You're simply not charging opponents enough to draw, and not protecting your holding enough.

Then, for the times they do hit, how will you avoid putting more money in the pot to justify their call? Are you going to check/fold every time a scare card comes maybe? Also, do you see how this will further restrict your ability to value bet on later streets? When the third heart peels off on the turn, it's going to be more difficult to know where you stand. C-betting half the pot certainly won't chase off a flush draw... ok, so now you have a k-high board with AK and are getting action. Now you're guessing.

I'd highly recommend rethinking your position a little bit, and then go online and see what kind of flop bets the better players are making in the med-higher limit games, especially over at UB.

[/ QUOTE ]

i'd rather play the hand correctly on all streets than over-bet and lose action early because i'm afraid of making a tough fold on a future street.

it all depends on your opposition and your strengths/weaknesses.

in general terms i don't think it's correct thinking to say you have to make it WAY wrong to draw every time just because implied odds exist.

also, constantly over-betting to protect against draws tends to make your continuation bets and bluffs/semi-bluffs more expensive and less effective. it's a balancing act, but i prefer giving myself options (which i think relatively smaller bets accomplish).

[AP0CALYP5E]

I prefer the half pot. I want them to try to draw, but I also want to minimize damage if they flopped a set or something bigger. I have no problem laying a hand down if a scare card hits. I know I'm sometimes folding the best hand, but the pot is small.

[LegendLength]

You should generally bet according to the texture of the flop. If there are are possible straight and flush draws (e.g. Jh Th 3d) then you would want to bet nearly the amount of the pot. On a dry board such as Kh 9d 3c you should only bet 1/2 the pot or so.

With that as your base you can change the bet sizes slightly to suit other factors such as passive or agressive opponents, effective stack sizes. But it should not reflect your hand in most cases (e.g. You should try to bet the same amount with a good or bad kicker, or top or middle pair).

[Bang584]

I find one of the more important factors in maximizing profit/minimizing loss is the number of bets/raises made in a hand.