NLHTP question: value betting the river

[maurile]

I'm only 90 pages into the book so far, but it is excellent. David and Ed should both be very proud of their baby.

My question:

In the chapter on Value Betting on the River (pages 87-90), is there a reason to think that betting $500 out of position is more likely to discourage a bluff-raise than betting $500 in position is to discourage a bluff check-raise?

If so, what is the reason? If not, I think the section on playing in position is misleadingly incomplete.

It would appear that being out of position is advantageous since betting $500 has an EV of $50, while in position it was determined that checking down (EV = zero) was the best move.

Specifically, it appears that checking is worth $700 out of position and $800 in position; that betting $200 is worth $760 out of position and $760 in position; and that betting $500 is worth $850 out of position . . . and <u>???</u> in position?

Betting $500 in position was determined to be inferior to betting $200 in position against an opponent who would never bluff-raise. But then betting $200 in position was determined to be inferior to checking down against an opponent who would sometimes bluff-raise. The chapter apparently concludes that checking down is therefore the best option.

But what about betting $500 against an opponent who would sometimes bluff check-raise in response to smaller bets, but not in response to the larger bet? Against this opponent (like the one discussed in the section on playing out of position), isn't betting $500 the best option, producing an EV of +$50?

Or does that not work for some reason, and playing from out of position really is preferable to playing from in position in this chapter's hypothetical examples?

[David Sklansky]

We didn't mean to imply that a typical player would check raise bluff more often than he would raise bluff. We were just showing how various assumptions change the best play.

[maurile]

Cool. Thanks for the response.