Professional No-Limit Hold 'em Study Group Day 1

[Matt Flynn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
4. A thought experiment: suppose you had to play online poker exclusively and the only bet you could make was a fixed percentage of the pot. They offer you a "bet pot" button with no slider to adjust, but you can change "bet pot" to any size. What would you choose?

[/ QUOTE ]

Could it be different by street? On the flop, I seem to find myself gravitating towards 3/4 pot, and on the later streets 2/3.

[/ QUOTE ]


heh that'd be an awesome program for someone who 8-tables.

descending bets relative to the pot work best when you are betting a lot of made hands relative to bluffs. it's because of flop bet sizing. if bluffing a lot you'd like to make your flop bets smaller. that reduces the cost of bluffing, including the cost of firing a second barrel. if betting made hands a lot you often want the pot bigger (for your big hands) so a bigger flop bet size work well.

also when you've got a big hand you usually want your opponents to call, so you sometimes decrement your bet sizes (relative to the pot size) to increase the chances of getting paid off.

[bozzer]

i think it's just because drawing hands are less likely to make an incorrect call with one street to come than they are on the flop.

btw matt, have you heard of the 'bet pot' script? you should check it out; it's more clever than it sounds.

[fozzy71]

[ QUOTE ]
then if we bet 1/2 pot they get pot odds of 2:1 which is pretty much what they need.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you bet 1/2 pot, then he is getting 3/1 on his call. Pot (2x the bet) + Bet = 3x your bet

$10 pot + $5 Bet = $15 in middle, he has to call $5. 15/5 = 3/1

[Matt Flynn]

[ QUOTE ]
btw matt, have you heard of the 'bet pot' script? you should check it out; it's more clever than it sounds.

[/ QUOTE ]

link?

[Aviston]

I am yet another LHE player making the move to NLHE (although I haven't played much at all of either over the past couple of years). I'm having some difficulty in figuring out implied odds. While in Limit, implied odds are pretty straight forward (if I hit my draw I can probably win an extra bet on the river), in NLHE this is obviously quite a bit more complicated. Do you have any guidelines for estimating implied odds? Not actual percentages or anything, but more of an elaboration of the thought process.

For example assuming medium stack sizes, you are HU and in position against a preflop raiser (say, average PF raise of 4x the BB):

You hold A [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img]2 [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] on a board of: T [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img]7 [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img]4 [img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img].

Your opponent leads for 2/3 of the pot.

What if he's TAG, or LAG, or Loose-Passive, or Weak-Tight?

What if your draw is more 'hidden'. Say you hold 8 [img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img]6 [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] on the same board?

Once again, I'm not looking for actual estimates, just more of the thought process on how these different factors can lead to a roughly accurate view of your implied odds.

Thanks in advance!

[Matt Flynn]

[ QUOTE ]
I try to vary my c-bet size around the texture of the board and my position, and pretty much use my cards as a determination of whether to c-bet at all, if I don't care for the board.

I'm pretty sure that this is a good way to approach c-betting in general, but at the low limit games, would you discount this approach unless you believe your opponent in the hand with you is better than average?

[/ QUOTE ]

well not sure i can comment usefully. kind of depends on how you're doing it and how often they'll lay down and how quickly they adjust to your betting frequencies. but the strategy sounds good.

[bozzer]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
btw matt, have you heard of the 'bet pot' script? you should check it out; it's more clever than it sounds.

[/ QUOTE ]

link?

[/ QUOTE ]

http://www.overcards.com/wiki/moin.cgi/AutoHotKey

http://www.overcards.com/wiki/moin.cgi/BetPot

[Onaflag]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
then if we bet 1/2 pot they get pot odds of 2:1 which is pretty much what they need.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you bet 1/2 pot, then he is getting 3/1 on his call. Pot (2x the bet) + Bet = 3x your bet

$10 pot + $5 Bet = $15 in middle, he has to call $5. 15/5 = 3/1

[/ QUOTE ]

1/4 pot bet gives villain 5-1
1/3 pot bet gives villain 4-1
1/2 pot bet gives villain 3-1
2/3 pot bet gives villain 2.5
3/4 pot bet gives villain 2.3-1
1/1 pot bet gives villain 2-1

Where I make most of my mistakes is when I bet 1/2 pot giving villain implied odds only to hit either his flush or straight draw and then paying off a little bit when he does by maybe calling a smallish turn bet.

Here's my question - if you're trying to price out a draw and that draw appears to come in, do you just give up to ensure you're not giving implied odds to your opponent?

ex: 100BB effective stacks. You raise black aces 4x OTB and get one caller. Pot is 8BB. Flop has 2 hearts, no straight draws. Checked to you and you bet 1/2 pot. Villain calls.

Turn completes the flush and villain leads repping the flush. To deny implied odds, is this an auto fold?

Why do I get the feeling I'm leaving something out and "it depends" is the correct answer?

Thanks for this thread. We all appreciate it.

Onaflag...........

[Pyromaniac]

if you're trying to price out a draw, shouldn't you be betting at least pot-sized on a flop like that?

[Matt Flynn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
btw matt, have you heard of the 'bet pot' script? you should check it out; it's more clever than it sounds.

[/ QUOTE ]

link?

[/ QUOTE ]

http://www.overcards.com/wiki/moin.cgi/AutoHotKey

http://www.overcards.com/wiki/moin.cgi/BetPot

[/ QUOTE ]


awesome. will get it.