Equity and value betting

[SeanC]

Hey,

For simplicity's sake, let's assume you're on the riever, in position with a deep stack left. You have a decent hand and it's checked to you.

How does your equity vs. the vil's range affect your decisions regarding value betting? At what equity does value-betting make sense? 30-40% and up?

Thanks.

[PhlegmWad]

Ummm.. I'll take a stab.... I think the basic thought here would be to answer this question: Given by read on the vil and his range, how likely am I to get called by a hand that I can beat? Taken to the extreme, if I am only going to get called by a hand that beats me, then you have no additional equity in the hand by betting and hence you check it down (UNLESS, OF COURSE, YOU DON'T WANT YOUR HOLE CARDS SEEN - IF, FOR EXAMPLE, YOU WERE RAISING WITH SOME ODD COMBO FROM EARLY POSITION OR SOMETHING WHICH WAS IN CONTRAST TO YOUR TABLE IMAGE, IN WHICH CASE, IT WOULD PAY TO MAKE THE BET AND HOPE TO WIN THE HAND WITHOUT EXPOSING YOUR CARDS). On the other extreme - if you KNOW you are going to get called on the river by a substandard hand that you surely have beaten, then, by all means, you would try to extract every $$ possible by betting.

As far as the math - you really don't need much fold equity at all to make it a positive EV play on the river - I mean, if you have a hand thats gonna be a loser 2 out of 3 times on showdown, and your opponent is going to call 70% of the time, you still have a 53% EV position and, if you arent risking much of your stack percentage wise, it's clear that you should make the bet, unless there is a possiblity that your opponent could be check-raising 5th street. But if your read on him is right and you don't think he will, then by all means make the value bet. The question becomes, "how much to bet so that I maintain what little fold equity (30%, lets say) that I have. If there is 1000 in the pot, and you bet 200, your opponent is getting 6/1 pot odds (200 to call to win 1200) and might make the call just figuring he can lose this 80% of the time and still make money. So your river bet must be large enough to maintain the "fold equity" that you require depending on your assessment of your hands chances on showdown.

If you feel that your hand has a higher chance to prevail on showdown adjust accordingly and feel free to offer what seem to be better pot odds for the call.

not sure if this helps

[SeanC]

[ QUOTE ]
Ummm.. I'll take a stab.... I think the basic thought here would be to answer this question: Given by read on the vil and his range, how likely am I to get called by a hand that I can beat? Taken to the extreme, if I am only going to get called by a hand that beats me, then you have no additional equity in the hand by betting and hence you check it down (UNLESS, OF COURSE, YOU DON'T WANT YOUR HOLE CARDS SEEN - IF, FOR EXAMPLE, YOU WERE RAISING WITH SOME ODD COMBO FROM EARLY POSITION OR SOMETHING WHICH WAS IN CONTRAST TO YOUR TABLE IMAGE, IN WHICH CASE, IT WOULD PAY TO MAKE THE BET AND HOPE TO WIN THE HAND WITHOUT EXPOSING YOUR CARDS). On the other extreme - if you KNOW you are going to get called on the river by a substandard hand that you surely have beaten, then, by all means, you would try to extract every $$ possible by betting.

As far as the math - you really don't need much fold equity at all to make it a positive EV play on the river - I mean, if you have a hand thats gonna be a loser 2 out of 3 times on showdown, and your opponent is going to call 70% of the time, you still have a 53% EV position and, if you arent risking much of your stack percentage wise, it's clear that you should make the bet, unless there is a possiblity that your opponent could be check-raising 5th street. But if your read on him is right and you don't think he will, then by all means make the value bet. The question becomes, "how much to bet so that I maintain what little fold equity (30%, lets say) that I have. If there is 1000 in the pot, and you bet 200, your opponent is getting 6/1 pot odds (200 to call to win 1200) and might make the call just figuring he can lose this 80% of the time and still make money. So your river bet must be large enough to maintain the "fold equity" that you require depending on your assessment of your hands chances on showdown.

If you feel that your hand has a higher chance to prevail on showdown adjust accordingly and feel free to offer what seem to be better pot odds for the call.

not sure if this helps

[/ QUOTE ]

That makes sense, thanks. I guess the simplicity is to compare the fold equity and chance that he holds and will call with weaker hands to the size of your bet and the pot.

Theoretically, a $50 river bet into a $100 pot would need at least 50% equity outlined above, right?

[craig1120]

That's good that you think about stuff like this. One of the best ways I've improved is breaking down even the simplest concepts.

However, fold equity has nothing to do with deciding whether or not you should value bet. Also, try not to think about it in terms of Equity %'s either.

Here is a hint: When you bet what needs to happen in order to show a profit (think of it in the long run)?

[PhlegmWad]

[ QUOTE ]
That's good that you think about stuff like this. One of the best ways I've improved is breaking down even the simplest concepts.

However, fold equity has nothing to do with deciding whether or not you should value bet. Also, try not to think about it in terms of Equity %'s either.

Here is a hint: When you bet what needs to happen in order to show a profit (think of it in the long run)?

[/ QUOTE ]

Im not sure I agree with you here Craig on the matter of fold equity... after all, the original question was what to do with a MEDIOCRE HAND on the river. If the question was, "I have a pretty damned good hand (not the nuts) which I am pretty damned sure is ahead here (although not 100%), then you are correct - fold equity wouldn't be part of it because, you really don't want the person to fold.

But the question here was specifically a mediocre hand which, I take to mean as one which could pretty much be a loser as often as it's a winner on showdown. With that type of hand, the river bet truly isn't a "value bet" in the true sense of the word, and I think fold equity should be at least PART of your thinking and I think EV and pot odds offered are definitely part of it as well.

[AaronBrown]

Pot equity is not the main point. As PhlegmWad said, you have to think about the chance of being called by a hand that you can beat. You also have to know what you will do to an all-in reraise.

It's the texture of board that matters, along with the betting to date and style of the other player. You almost never want to bet into a hand that might be sure it has you beat. You also almost never want to bet if you have the weakest likely hand given your betting so far (and if you do bet, it's a pure bluff). You almost always want to put in a sizeable bet if it's a wide-open hand such that the other player is not likely to have nuts, and you have something signficantly better than your weakest possibility. You can't really figure out the EV in that situation, but you can force a hard choice on the other player. When you can't do something right yourself, give someone else a chance to do something wrong.

[DrVanNostrin]

[ QUOTE ]
Ummm.. I'll take a stab.... I think the basic thought here would be to answer this question: Given by read on the vil and his range, how likely am I to get called by a hand that I can beat? Taken to the extreme, if I am only going to get called by a hand that beats me, then you have no additional equity in the hand by betting and hence you check it down (UNLESS, OF COURSE, YOU DON'T WANT YOUR HOLE CARDS SEEN - IF, FOR EXAMPLE, YOU WERE RAISING WITH SOME ODD COMBO FROM EARLY POSITION OR SOMETHING WHICH WAS IN CONTRAST TO YOUR TABLE IMAGE, IN WHICH CASE, IT WOULD PAY TO MAKE THE BET AND HOPE TO WIN THE HAND WITHOUT EXPOSING YOUR CARDS). On the other extreme - if you KNOW you are going to get called on the river by a substandard hand that you surely have beaten, then, by all means, you would try to extract every $$ possible by betting.

As far as the math - you really don't need much fold equity at all to make it a positive EV play on the river - I mean, if you have a hand thats gonna be a loser 2 out of 3 times on showdown, and your opponent is going to call 70% of the time, you still have a 53% EV position and, if you arent risking much of your stack percentage wise, it's clear that you should make the bet, unless there is a possiblity that your opponent could be check-raising 5th street. But if your read on him is right and you don't think he will, then by all means make the value bet. The question becomes, "how much to bet so that I maintain what little fold equity (30%, lets say) that I have. If there is 1000 in the pot, and you bet 200, your opponent is getting 6/1 pot odds (200 to call to win 1200) and might make the call just figuring he can lose this 80% of the time and still make money. So your river bet must be large enough to maintain the "fold equity" that you require depending on your assessment of your hands chances on showdown.

If you feel that your hand has a higher chance to prevail on showdown adjust accordingly and feel free to offer what seem to be better pot odds for the call.

not sure if this helps

[/ QUOTE ]
You need to factor in that your mediocre hand will sometimes win if you check. Saying "if I bet $X and he fold Y% of the time, I profit, therefore I should bet" is correct only when your hand has no chance of winning the showdown. It will often appear that you stole the pot when the pot was yours. Remember, you can't bluff with the best hand.

[craig1120]

Ok here is what goes through my mind when deciding to value bet:

First, I kind of visualize what I think his range is. Then I think of all the hands that he calls my bet with, how many I am beating and how many I am losing to. A value bet must be called by more hands that you beat then are beating you. If he calls with 20 hands and I beat 12 of them, then it will be a profitable bet.

It doesn't matter how much the guy folds, if he calls with more hands that beat you then you beat, you should not bet. The only time FE comes into play is when you are deciding to bluff..

Edit: If when the guy calls and he has more hands that beat you and it is still more profitable to bet then check, then you are technically bluffing not value betting

[PhlegmWad]

[ QUOTE ]
Pot equity is not the main point. As PhlegmWad said, you have to think about the chance of being called by a hand that you can beat. You also have to know what you will do to an all-in reraise.

It's the texture of board that matters, along with the betting to date and style of the other player. You almost never want to bet into a hand that might be sure it has you beat. You also almost never want to bet if you have the weakest likely hand given your betting so far (and if you do bet, it's a pure bluff). You almost always want to put in a sizeable bet if it's a wide-open hand such that the other player is not likely to have nuts, and you have something signficantly better than your weakest possibility. You can't really figure out the EV in that situation, but you can force a hard choice on the other player. When you can't do something right yourself, give someone else a chance to do something wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

Very excellently said Aaron. Perfectly and simply described - I liked the last sentence - as poker is all about making better decisions then your opponents, and they can't make bad decisions if they have no decision to make in the first place! [img]/images/graemlins/smirk.gif[/img]

Also excellent to stress the "all-in reraise" angle. Alot of that has to do with your read on the Vil and your table image, and how we got to the point where you are faced with a possible river bet with a medium-stregnth hand.

For example, what if you raised with some suited ace, say A5h and got called preflop by someone who you have position on - say the SB and are heads up. The flop comes 5 K 10 with 2 hearts, Vil checks, you bet out half the pot and get called. Say turn is a blank 2, and Vil check-calls after you bet half the pot again with bottom pair and nut-flush draw. Say river comes another blank.. say a off suit 7 (5 K 10 2 7) and now the Vil checks again. In this case your table image and read on the other player is critical. Could this person have been paying to see with JQ? Against that type of player, a bet on the river will get you nothing. Maybe they were calling you down with a non-nut flush draw and missed. Same thing.

Maybe they have a "decent" or "mediocre" hand here too, like A-10 or J-10? Strangely enough, this is <u>the type of player</u> against whom IN GENERAL, you probably would consider making a nice healthy river bet against with a medium strength hand (even though they have you beat in this case) because they are more likely to call with a hand that you have beat and <u>a reraise is highly unlikely</u>.

But maybe they have a set of 2's or they flopped 2 pair and didn't repop. Are they the "sneaky" type of player who could sit there and just let you fire away, hoping you'll fire a 3rd bullet on the river? Against that type of player, you want to check it down. If its the type of player who bets their hands more forwardly, then you have to think "if he had a set or 2 pair I would have heard about it on 4th street" so you are less likely to face the big reraise out of the blue.

Needless to say, the situation would be completely different if you raise with suited A5, the BB called. Flop, check/check, turn, check/check, river, check and its up to you.

Poker situations aren't static. We aren't plopped down in a situation where we have a "decent" hand on the river, what do we do? <u>How we got to that point is everything.</u>

[PhlegmWad]

[ QUOTE ]
You need to factor in that your mediocre hand will sometimes win if you check. Saying "if I bet $X and he fold Y% of the time, I profit, therefore I should bet" is correct only when your hand has no chance of winning the showdown. It will often appear that you stole the pot when the pot was yours. Remember, you can't bluff with the best hand.

[/ QUOTE ]

Good point. That is factored in, however. Like I say, for example, if you figure you have a hand that is ahead of 60% of his hands (60% chance to win on showdown) and there is a 30% chance that he will fold - when you put these two TOGETHER, you are in a 72% situation. So, in a world without reraises (hahaha), if the only decision on the river is bet/no bet, followed by call/fold you really only need to have a hand that wins 1/3 of the time combined with a 30% chance of folding in order to bring the entire transaction up to a positive EV at 53%. (this is more akin to shove/fold strategy, though it can be applied on the river as well where the chance of reraise is significantly close to zero)