value betting rivers

[private joker]

Limit holdem tendencies have driven me to consider value betting first, then wondering if checking is superior. But when I play NL, I notice that the constant fear of draws completing and other weak-tight tendencies are common among good players, so I'm thinking maybe there's just less value betting in general in proper NLHE strategy.

What's the case in this hand?

5/10 live, 400 max. I've got 370 or so, unknown villain in SB has me covered.

Bad EP player limps, I raise on the button with AT to 40 (I'm targeting an SPR of 4 and expecting 1 call). SB calls, BB and EP limper fold.

Flop comes JT5 with 2 spades, I have the Ts. SB checks, I bet 50, SB calls. Pot is 190 now.

Turn is a T. He checks, I bet 90 of my 280 left, leaving me with 190 (is this a horrible bet size? Should I just shove it in with a big overbet? I sort of wanted to milk him if he had a J while denying him odds to call with KQ). He calls.

River is the 7s. He checks. Assuming he has either a J or a draw, what's the value in betting here? (Obviously any bet is a shove, so I don't have to worry about being raised).

I don't see people calling river bets here with top pair too much (even live players tend to tighten up to a third barrel), but clearly he's never laying down a flush. But I dunno... are we fearing the draw or trying to max value?

[djshawk]

I'd bet more on the turn.

If he's got a jack he's calling 130-140 often and if he's on the spade/straight draw that still gives him about 3/1 implied odds to draw.

Your $90 bet gave him about 5/1 implied odds which is too generous. On the river you have about 1/2 pot left behind so if he shoved it'd be really hard to fold. This allows him to get the most when he hits and loose the least when he misses.

You said you were aiming for a specific spr preflop, but since that didn't work you could rethink your bet sizes to make getting it all in on the turn easier. If you bet 70 on the flop you'll have 260 rather than 280 left and the pot will be 230 rather than 190 so a turn push will be much more acceptable. Of course if the ten didn't turn you may not have wanted to push.

As played I dont think your turn bet will have looked like you were prepared to play for the rest of your stack, in which case I think villian would bet the river if he made his flush. With that in mind I think you can still get value from a jack, perhaps just put a teaser of $100 out, he'll struggle not to call that if he's holding a jack.

[Sam Spade]

I struggle with this concept as well.

I think the turn is your opportunity to put villain to the test. We hit our target SPR, but only have mp/tk on a draw heavy board. Are we committed? Not yet. I like the flop bet as it looks like we are c-betting with position. The turn brings our commitment card. Any respectable bet puts more than 1/3 of our chips in the pot, so it is time to make a decision. Passive play would be to check behind and let him draw at a cheap flush/straight/J. I push with a ton of fold equity.

[Captain R]

[ QUOTE ]
I'd bet more on the turn.

If he's got a jack he's calling 130-140 often and if he's on the spade/straight draw that still gives him about 3/1 implied odds to draw.

With that in mind I think you can still get value from a jack, perhaps just put a teaser of $100 out, he'll struggle not to call that if he's holding a jack.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with a larger turn bet, and river you can probably make a smallish value bet. I haven't finished reading PNLHE so I don't understand the commitment, but why do you have to call a c/r? If villain is passive and won't try to put a move on you (most players around here are not going to try to bluff you here, although they will c/r their flush), you can make a small value bet. To me, a small value bet means like 70-90 here.

Such a small bet will look like the nuts to some players, because that's how they bet their full house/nut flush. A J will probably call the 70/90 and you don't lose so much if he c/r you.

Disclaimer: I am a total NL retard, I'm just starting out in $200 games.

[Guruman]

PJ,

Haven't read the other posts yet, but I think a primary diff between limit and nl is the recognition of hands that are worth three streets of value.

In limit holdem you tend to not know exactly how many bets you can get in vs a given opponent until after he pays you off. Also, when you run into nasty surprises you're generally still in a position to see another card or just showdown in spots like this.

In nl though, you have to consider right off the bat whether you have three streets of value in your hand. You're clearly considering relative stack sizes well, but I don't think you've melded that with the three streets of play in the nl format here.

--the specific limit line you're looking at is a villain checkraise on the turn or river - which in a NL situation ends up equating to a shove--


when the flop comes down giving you middle pair with a bd draw on a way drawy board, you've got a hand that's not going to be worth three streets of value unless it improves.

It will be worth one to 2 streets of value UI though.

I personally play this hand by checking through the flop. The structure of your game is such that stacks are short and so shoves should be frequent, and we don't really want our villain making good shove decisions. If he has a draw on that board and we cont bet then he can checkraise shove a lot of hands correctly and put us into some very awkward spots.

If you check the flop through though, you can make a lot of good decisions on the turn. If villain checks then you can bet for value. If he bets into you, you can make a read on the strength of his hand and either call or shove depending on your read. If villain check/calls the turn then you have a much easier river vb. If villain donks the turn and then checks the river you have the same situation.

as played you have to check the river through because villain's going nowhere and it's hard to stack off with a worse hand.

--as an aside, I tend to check through a lot of J8,J9, and JT flops in raised pots because of how many coldcalling hands pick up a pair or a draw on those boards and are itching to make moves. It also allows me to play my draws more aggressively on the turn because it looks like a slowplay when I put action in there after not cont-betting. These days, I almost need a read to cont bet that board with 80% of my pfr hands.--

[diebitter]

PJ

In short, you value bet the hell out of the calling stations on all streets, even the river. Holding just top pair, you tend to bet a little less than with two pair/set.

When a non-calling station keeps callng your decent-sized bet on a drawy flop without raising and the draws don't land, then you can value-bet for a small amount a safe river. If a potential draw lands, you tend to prefer pot control/checking unless you have redraws yourself, then in becomes more situational.

I dunno, is this sorta stating the obvious?

[fabadam]

[ QUOTE ]
PJ

In short, you value bet the hell out of the calling stations on all streets, even the river. Holding just top pair, you tend to bet a little less than with two pair/set.

[/ QUOTE ]

So far, I'm trying to avoid linking my bet size to the strength of my hand, thinking it's easy to pick up on for villains.

Am I giving them too much credit (think NL25/50/100)?

[diebitter]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
PJ

In short, you value bet the hell out of the calling stations on all streets, even the river. Holding just top pair, you tend to bet a little less than with two pair/set.

[/ QUOTE ]

So far, I'm trying to avoid linking my bet size to the strength of my hand, thinking it's easy to pick up on for villains.

Am I giving them too much credit (think NL25/50/100)?

[/ QUOTE ]


Ah, it's not easy to avoid though. Most people aren't that good at these levels to exploit this - if they were that good, they should be playing higher - they're more interested in how good their hand is vs your range (and that's the better players). Combine that with so many multitabling, it's not that big a deal.

In addition, you sometimes slightly underbet what you really want to bet to keep weak players in, and you probably do this enough to break up the pattern.

Otherwise use some randomisation method to mix it up 20/80 or thereabouts (ie bet what you want 80%, the opposite 20%)


What I should have clarified here is you shouldn't be looking to build the pot to be a standard stacking with this (ie a flop/turn/river PSB>PSB>PSB). Instead a 2/3PSB, 1/2PSB, 1/2 or less PSB is fine.

[James.]

i like alot of what guru had to say about the number of streets of value a holding warrants. i strongly agree with this concept and think it's one of the biggest differences in limit and NL strategy(for instance TP in limit can often afford bets going in on all 3 streets with a raise somewhere and still show profit; TP in NL can be a 2 street or 3 street hand[opponent dependent] but if a raise goes in you're fairly often in bad shape if it presents a stack decision or even a raise that commits you to stacking off later). our opponent is obviously a huge function of this equation since against looser, calling station-types we can valuebet more liberally, while you will often need to check a street to maximize against more aggressive(LAG and TAG) opponents.

this is where pot control is a powerful tool for the times want to showdown but avoid making a stack decision. it's also a good way to disguise your hand while at the same time expanding your opponent's range of "action" holdings and induce bluffs, etc increasing your equity against him when money goes in.

against an unknown with middle pair or TP no kicker, i would either check the flop or bet the flop and check the turn. which street to do it on matters less to me when we don't know our opponent because both plays carry benefits against different types of players. since it's pretty standard to c-bet after raising pf, generally, i think the same range peels the flop as they would the turn after we feign weakness by checking the flop. as guru stated previously, these types of flops(coordinated with lower broadways) tend to hit a typical limper's holdings and as such that might swing it to making a flop check superior in this particular instance.

[ QUOTE ]
I don't see people calling river bets here with top pair too much (even live players tend to tighten up to a third barrel), but clearly he's never laying down a flush.

[/ QUOTE ]

this quote brings up another point. it's important to know what types of players will lay down top pair to that 3rd barrel and on what boards they will do it on. this really opens up your ability to bluff ATC and puts you in a strong position of exploiting your opponent's weak tendencies. being able to take down a pot without actually making a hand can add significantly to your overall earn(assuming you aren't risking too much).

and fwiw, i don't particularly like pf. i say this because you are making SPR decisions like you're going to be committed if you flop top pair or something. since alot of opponents in live games won't raise a hand like AT/AJ(or even AQ and to a lesser extent AK) i'm afraid when we start making commitment decision with top pair ten kicker, against alot of opponents we aren't going to be getting it in the best of it.

[private joker]

[ QUOTE ]


and fwiw, i don't particularly like pf.

[/ QUOTE ]

James, so you're saying you limp in this spot? I assumed that even if I'm never going to be committed to the hand, I should at least simply raise because I have a better hand than EP a lot of the time, and I'd prefer the blinds to fold so I am playing HU in position with the best hand -- pretty much the ideal situation in holdem.