The case with mini-betting (long!)

[PrayingMantis]

There was a discussion here about the merits of mini-betting with a draw. I'd like to suggest some different points to consider.

OK, so we "know" mini-betting (limit-betting) in NL is "fishy", although sometimes "fishy" moves can work fine, especially against weak opponents. But why mini-betting with a draw in NL is "fishy"? Are we mistaken, and it's actually a good move?

If you've raised PF, and hit a draw, mini-betting only works as a "cover" for your draw, and it has very little meaning in NL. Are you going to call a substential raise? Probably not, if the draw is pretty weak. If it is a draw you are willing to call with, it is probably better to raise (i.e, mini-bet - raise!) than call, but then - why not bet a significant, meaningful bet to begin with? Or simply check? What does the mini-bet gets you?

Oh! it is a *tricky* move! because your opponent/s is/are afraid you're slowplaying a monster, so now he wont raise you, and by that you've won an almost free card. But did you? If the pot odds justified your payment on the flop (let's talk flop here), just to see another card, probably yes, but often, that's not the case (and remember - you're paying to see just ONE more card, no body is all-in).

So, when it's not the case (BTW, even if it is the case, it's better to play your draw strong than betting min. but that's not the issue here) you're making a pot-odds' mistake, and are justifying your move only with the assumption you have good or correct implied odds. But do you really have? Think about it: implied odds are relevant only when you're against an opponent who will be willing to make a BIG call, or to bet BIG, with a 2nd best hand, so if you hit your draw on a later street - you might win his whole stack.

But do you read him correctly? I'm not sure. If he's the kind of player who is scared by your mini-bet, and that's why he's not raising you with a made hand, I'll suspect he's NOT the kind of player who'll call or bet big with his 2nd best hand, when you'll hit. So - he's not the opponent who'll give you any significant implied odds (if he had any hand at all! you could have won the pot on the river with a stronger bet, and not let HIM draw too!), and therefore - your mini-bet on the flop with a draw is a -EV move.

And it's even worse than what you think, since, as I've just mentioned, *nobody* will fold (i.e, you won't have a chance to win the pot uncontested, which is VERY important, most of the time), so you lose any potential EV, coming from others making wrong (and even correct) folds!

And of course, since your opponent fears you have hit the flop hard, then UNLESS you are planning on BLUFFING, sometimes, on the river or earlier when you don't hit, this whole mini-bet play does not make much sense, IMO. And bluffing big on the river is a risky move, especially in multi-way pots, which *are* multi-way because you did nothing to narrow the field with your "sophisticated" mini-bet.

There are, of course, many other ways to think about this issue, in regard to different potential implied-odds for different draws (Draws for higher pairs and flushes are the worst, hidden straights and sets are much much more profitable, to put it very shortly).

I'd like to make another point: Playing fishy against the fish might work sometimes, of course, but I strongly believe that it's a much higher +EV in the long run to work on the fundamentals of NL (or NL SNG) even on the lowest buy-ins. Because when you make fishy and weak moves, and they "work" for you, you repeat them. But at some point, and against somewhat better opponents, they won't "work" anymore. They'll be, simply, fishy moves, and why get used to making fishy moves?

I guarentee you that's it's absolutely possible to crash low-limit SNGs, without mini-betting even once post flop, and also PF. Although, as anything in poker, there are times to mini-bet in NL, if you happen to like this move (some very strong players use it, I know)...

These are only some thoughts. I apologize if it sounds like I'm patronizing or anytnig, or thinking I know better than anybody else, because I'm certainly not. I'm a student of the game, like many others here. I'll welcome any kind of flaming and criticism. Please share your thoughts.

Peace.

[mackthefork]

I'm going to read this in more detail later, but for now I will just make this small point. One thing a lot of you guys from higher limit sngs seem to ignore is the huge number of lower buy in players who will call 300 if they will call 50, so there is often virtually no folding equity in a bigger bet, especially early on. Point is if you miss you aint taking the pot a lot of guys will call all in with top pair weak kicker and worse so being strong is wasted on them, unless you have a made hand.

All in my opinion

Regards ML

[PrayingMantis]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm going to read this in more detail later, but for now I will just make this small point. One thing a lot of you guys from higher limit sngs seem to ignore is the huge number of lower buy in players who will call 300 if they will call 50, so there is often virtually no folding equity in a bigger bet, especially early on. Point is if you miss you aint taking the pot a lot of guys will call all in with top pair weak kicker and worse so being strong is wasted on them, unless you have a made hand.


[/ QUOTE ]

First, I'd suggest you read in more detail before replying. Second, I've played A LOT of low buy-in SNGs, I'm not writing it from a higher-buy-in perspective, in the pure sense, although I certainly have a "higher buy-in perspective" on this matter. Third, if they ARE calling ANY BET with ANYTHING, this minibet with a draw does not make ANY sense at all, and does not achieve ANYTHING. Think about it. But first read my whole post, please.

[mackthefork]

Okay man, don't go mad, I'll read it now, and see where I f&)(*ed up! /images/graemlins/grin.gif

Regards ML

[Jason Strasser]

I never mini-bet, but it may be a flaw in my game.

A point you didn't touch on that I think is very important with regards to this subject is position. I think we can all agree that you (barring odd circumstances) should never mini-bet with a made hand in a multi-way pot. Regardless of position, you want to make a pot sized bet to drive out the draws. And you also want your opponents to react, possibly by raising, and go from there.

The most common time I see mini-betting is from a draw in early position. This makes a little sense to me, but I have a big problem with it. For example, lets say I limp with JTs on the button. The flop comes J64, and there are 2 cards that are not of my suit. If a player in EP mini-bets with the nut flush draw, and it gets called or whatever to me, I am very likely to raise in position. Sure if the mini-better comes over the top, I probably fold and say nice hand. But more often than not, the typical move by these 'mini betters' is to bet the min and call with draws. I have rarely, if ever, seen the mini-bet raise WITH a draw. At the lower level SNGs, sometimes you see this type of play with a monster made hand, but I rarely see it nowadays.

Back to the JTs hand. If I raise, and the EP limper calls, I can fairly safely put him on a draw, and basically give him zero implied odds (by not paying him off when his obvious draw hits). But to the counter argument. Say he semi-bluffed from EP and bet the pot. There is one move for me and that is to fold.

This is where your point comes into play. You have no folding equity with the mini-bet. That is my gripe with it. You put yourself in harder positions. I can almost always (in my mind) think of a better solution to mini-betting. I think mini-betting then coming over the top is an interesting move with a draw, and I think I may try it out. But again, I think if you have a solid draw IN position, mini-betting has no point. You should probably bet the pot on the flop, and then check the turn. Which I think is a very standard line, but IMO the best line.

My .02,
-Jason

[PrayingMantis]

Hey, nobody said you f&)(*ed up! /images/graemlins/grin.gif
You might be absolutely right, and I can be wrong, but I think it makes more sense if you reply with a criticism after actually reading... /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

Yes, and I know it was probably too long, to begin with. /images/graemlins/frown.gif

[PrayingMantis]

Good points, Jason, regarding position. I was talking mainly about doing it from EP, of course, which is more common, and supposedly makes more sense.

I've also said something about another point you've made: a min-bet/raise (a variance on the check/raise) or a min-bet/pot-bet-on-later-street (as a bluff, usually, since we're talking about a draw, that most often won't hit), are probably much more valid options, especially without position, than simply min-betting from start to end, which is what most people (low buy-in players) do when they think of "mini-betting with a draw", unless they hit it, of course.

However, I would like to add a few reasons why a mini-bet with a draw (from EP, I'm not even talking about LP) is problematic. Let's assume 2 types of players: aggressive and passive.

The aggressive will probably raise you - and you'll have to fold or re-raise him. If you fold - your min-bet was a waste of chips. And if you had bet bigger against this player to begin with, you could have taken the pot down in many cases, since he won't attack you back without the goods.

The passive will not bet into you if he hasn't got anything. If he WILL bet, you know you can lay down your hand. Again - your mini-bet was a waste of chips, that achieved nothing, and with no folding equity (this is extremely important), since you know that the player/s wouldn't fold anyway, to a mini-bet.

Now - when could the mini-bet make sense?

Only against a player who would have raised you UNLESS you min-bet at him. And that brings us back exactly to the point I've made in my original post: if he won't raise, that means he's afraid of what you have (he suspects you're slow-playing a strong hand, and trying to trap him), but in order to use this as an advantage, you almost MUST bet strong later on, as a bluff, to keep representing your "strong hand", and try to win the pot (because he would probably fold better hands, since we agree he's afraid of your "hand"). Otherwise, I can't see much sense in this betting pattern.

All IMO.

[Jason Strasser]

I agree with your points.

I think that the player who is scared by a min bet is becoming a rare breed. For me, a min bet is almost equivalent to a check. I rarely see the monsters being mini-bet anymore, especially in EP.

Just for joo, I'm going to experiment a bit with the min-bet raise. I'll let you know how much you cost me. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

But in all seriousness, I am curious to see if the play works. It's kind of fishy. But it's also not.

[mackthefork]

What I was trying to say is, people are often just calling these small bets with really good hands like 2 pair and top pair good kicker, down in the lower limits there are a lot of simply awful players.

[ QUOTE ]
Oh! it is a *tricky* move! because your opponent/s is/are afraid you're slowplaying a monster, so now he wont raise you, and by that you've won an almost free card.

[/ QUOTE ]

It isn't that they are afraid you are slowplaying a monster, they are trying to be clever and trap you, not realising or possibly not caring that you are on a draw.

[ QUOTE ]
Think about it: implied odds are relevant only when you're against an opponent who will be willing to make a BIG call, or to bet BIG, with a 2nd best hand, so if you hit your draw on a later street - you might win his whole stack.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thats just my point, lots of them are calling your small bet but would call if you went 200 or 300 or even all in sometimes. If you hit on the turn you will get paid, if you don't you might have to fold it. I even played a guy who seemed good, but he called a few small bets with a flopped set and only raised on the river after i had made the nut flush.

[ QUOTE ]
your mini-bet on the flop with a draw is a -EV move.

[/ QUOTE ]

It is more likely close to dead level, but increases variance. Seriously if you make it, they will call, almost every time.

[ QUOTE ]
And it's even worse than what you think, since, as I've just mentioned, *nobody* will fold (i.e, you won't have a chance to win the pot uncontested, which is VERY important, most of the time), so you lose any potential EV, coming from others making wrong (and even correct) folds!


[/ QUOTE ]

As I said before i don't think they will all fold to a higher bet anyways, then you definitely won't get your odds unless your draw is very strong.

I like to mess about when I'm playing I suppose I give up quite a bit by playing hands you guys wouldn't play, but i think you have to do what you enjoy and suffer the consequences. I might bet the pot with a flopped full house or 63o on an ace high board, you gotta mix up imo. When I get up to 30s and 50s I will prob calm down (or go broke /images/graemlins/grin.gif).

[ QUOTE ]
I'll welcome any kind of flaming and criticism.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ditto

Regards ML

[PrayingMantis]

[ QUOTE ]
Just for joo, I'm going to experiment a bit with the min-bet raise. I'll let you know how much you cost me.

[/ QUOTE ]

I must say I don't remember mini-betting since I've moved up from low buy-ins (in the low buy-ins I used to make any kind of play, smart or stupid, until I started to realize what is smart and what's stupid... /images/graemlins/grin.gif. And I'm still learning it now, of course).

If you do the min-bet/raise, please take a note of the type of player your playing against. That should be extremely helpful. I'd say that if you are an extra aggressive player, min-betting might work for you in a more traditional way, since other agressive players (that know you) might find it very bizzare, and might lose a bit of their balance, which is always good.

[PrayingMantis]

As a general comment, of course you should do whatever works for you, and whatever is more fun to you. I completely agree.

[ QUOTE ]
It isn't that they are afraid you are slowplaying a monster, they are trying to be clever and trap you, not realising or possibly not caring that you are on a draw.


[/ QUOTE ]

2 points: 1) most of the time people don't hit their hands hard on flops. They hit something. So usualy they won't be slow-playing a monster to trap you, by calling, but simply calling, or *raising* if they think they have a better hand, or to bluff you out. That's how it works in any buy-in, as I see it. 2) If they DO try only to "trap" you by calling, why bet anything at all into them? they are willing to give you a free card. They don't want you to fold, with their "monster" (these are passive players, in general). So mini-betting is a (small) waste of chips.

[ QUOTE ]
Thats just my point, lots of them are calling your small bet but would call if you went 200 or 300 or even all in sometimes. If you hit on the turn you will get paid, if you don't you might have to fold it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Again, you are describing here "calling stations", or "passive" players. Why do you need to bet anything into them, mini-bet or not, when you're on a draw? Bet when you have it, check when you don't. Very simple. That's the exact reason for why bluffing or semi-bluffing (this whole "mini-betting with a draw" issue is actually semi-bluffing, in other words. Edit: to be more precise, it's a BAD semi-bluff, since it's a semi-bluff with zero folding equity, agsint almost any player) into calling station in limit game is a big mistake. Same situation.

[ QUOTE ]
It is more likely close to dead level, but increases variance.

[/ QUOTE ]

It is close, since we're *usualy* talking about early rounds, but I'm more interested in the shaky logic behind this move. And still, -CEV moves and more variance in early rounds of SNGs are not exactly what you're looking for, IMO (in multis it can be different).

[ QUOTE ]
As I said before i don't think they will all fold to a higher bet anyways, then you definitely won't get your odds unless your draw is very strong.


[/ QUOTE ]

Again, that's not a reason to mini-bet. It's a reason not to bet at all. There's a big difference.

Good discussion. I enjoyed replying! /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[ddubois]

So are you going to start a new thread everytime you can't resist criticizing my play?

[PrayingMantis]

[ QUOTE ]
So are you going to start a new thread everytime you can't resist criticizing my play?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, critisizing your play is the most important thing in my life right now. /images/graemlins/grin.gif And that's the whole purpose of this thread. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

C'mon.

Actually, I don't think your play in that hand you posted was too bad or something. Mini-betting with a draw, by definition, can not be a BIG mistake. However, this makes a great subject for a theoretic thread, IMO, especially since everyone replying to that hand you've posted said it is awsome, but no one really gave it any deep thought.

[ddubois]

I think it's a huge mistake to even mention fold equity. The only way I have any fold equity is if no player has a king. Calling stations do not fold Kx on a K-high flop. How do I know they are calling stations? They called! With AJo and K9o apparently.

I learned my lession a month ago trying to bet off a calling station with QQ when K flopped. I raised pre-flop, bet the pot on the flop, then pushed on the turn, and he showed down K6o. And I see that exact sequence daily, people playing QQ/JJ/TT the same way with one overcard. And I daily see Kx and Qx call them down.

[ QUOTE ]
Why do you need to bet anything into them, mini-bet or not, when you're on a draw?

[/ QUOTE ]
Even passive players bet when checked to. I might say the distinction between passive and aggressive players is not that they will bet when checked to, but what kind of holding they need to do so. For passive players, top pair will work, for aggressive/bluffy players, any two might work. Assign probabilities to the various bet amounts that would have come out of late position (or from middle position): 0, 15, 100, 200. Then calculate the weighted average; is it less than 15 or more than 15? I didn't do the calculation in precisely that manner, but my gut feeling was that it was over. Do you think the flop would have checked through 4-5 players?

The pot in my example was over 200 on the flop, so I didn't need any implied odds. 15:200 is enough to chase the gutshot alone on one street, neverminding the backdoor or the overcard. But, given that we are dealing with a calling station here, and what they like to do is call, I'm pretty confident I could have extracted at least another few hundred.

[Jason Strasser]

Ddubois, you are lost a bit here.

We are talking about the folding equity you have preflop. So when you move all-in, you gain because your opponent will fold some of the time. How are we making a mistake by mentioning that?

Your post really made no sense to me. I couldn't follow it.

[ QUOTE ]
Even passive players bet when checked to.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ummmm... Show me the light.

[ddubois]

[ QUOTE ]
We are talking about the folding equity you have preflop.

[/ QUOTE ]
With all due respect, no, we're not.

[PrayingMantis]

[ QUOTE ]
I think it's a huge mistake to even mention fold equity. The only way I have any fold equity is if no player has a king. Calling stations do not fold Kx on a K-high flop. How do I know they are calling stations? They called! With AJo and K9o apparently.


[/ QUOTE ]

Who mentioned fold equity? If you recognize them as calling station, and it seems you are VERY sure of this read, don't bet at them. Simple as that. Your mini-bet with a draw is essentially a semi-bluff with 0 folding equity (against ANY player). Against calling station it is even MORE so (negative folding equity? /images/graemlins/grin.gif). A complete waste of chips. The fact that it's a small amount (when blinds are low), does not matter. Throwing chips away with no reason is a fishy move.

[ QUOTE ]
Even passive players bet when checked to.

[/ QUOTE ]

Speaking about Agreesive/Passive players is of course a big generalization, there are many types in between. However, players who bet into you if you check to them, are NOT passive players. Passive players, according to the definition of passive, play passively. They call most of the time (if they are loose), and raise when they have something, not because you checked into them, like aggressive players do.

[ QUOTE ]
Assign probabilities to the various bet amounts that would have come out of late position (or from middle position): 0, 15, 100, 200. Then calculate the weighted average; is it less than 15 or more than 15? I didn't do the calculation in precisely that manner, but my gut feeling was that it was over. Do you think the flop would have checked through 4-5 players?


[/ QUOTE ]

This has actually nothing to do with this specific discussion. If you're saying that by mini-betting you cut-down the amount of chips you'll have to pay in-order to see another card, well, that will work, as I've already stated, against a player that will raise you UNLESS you mini-bet him. Who is this player? How do did you put this read on him? What does he hold, or could hold? He doesn't sound like a calling station to me. What is your chance to take down the pot with a *real* bet, against this player on the flop? What is your plan for the turn and river against this player, if you don't hit? These are all questions you should think about. The fact that you're mini-betting from EP because you don't expect the flop to get "checked through 4-5 players", does not make any kind of sense, IMO. Just a pointless move, although not a BIG mistake. Please forgive me for being a bit harsh here.

[ QUOTE ]
The pot in my example was over 200 on the flop, so I didn't need any implied odds. 15:200 is enough to chase the gutshot alone on one street, neverminding the backdoor or the overcard.

[/ QUOTE ]

Let's not discuss your specific hand. But I remember you have also called a min-raise, after mini-betting. Your whole idea of "chasing" in NL SNG is a bit problemtic, even if you get the right pot-odds, but that's not the point here.

[ QUOTE ]
But, given that we are dealing with a calling station here, and what they like to do is call, I'm pretty confident I could have extracted at least another few hundred.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are contradicting yourself. If they are calling stations, no need to mini-bet to begin with, and you can very easily fold if someone bets at you and you don't have the odds to call. Playing against calling station is extremely simple. No need for "fishy"/"sophisticated" moves, that's a waste of chips and you achieve nothing.

[Jason Strasser]

Bad jason. Bad Jason.

*hides in corner*

Edit: As you may've figured out, I responded to this post as if you had written it about the KJs hand in the previous post. I think I've been prowling the boards too long today. *sigh*

[PrayingMantis]

[ QUOTE ]
Edit: As you may've figured out, I responded to this post as if you had written it about the KJs hand in the previous post. I think I've been prowling the boards too long today. *sigh*


[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, I had a feeling you're jumping somehow between 2 different threads, and shouting "folding equity!" to whoever listens. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

See what Party poker does to a man! /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

[mackthefork]

[ QUOTE ]
Even passive players bet when checked to.

[/ QUOTE ]

I know what he means, these are guys who will call your 30 bet but will bet 200 if checked to. If you wanna see the turn cheap betting small is the only way to do it in my experience. Any decent player would pick this up and make it a horrible move pretty easily, but we aint talking about decent players i guess. I know you don't like it, and you are almost certainly correct at your level. But at 10s you can lead a horse to water and then make him drink too imo.

Regards ML

[mackthefork]

I think you probably take down more pots without a contest than anyone else on here man, never known anyone advocate going all in so much /images/graemlins/grin.gif, every time i do it i get called by some comedian with A2o lol.

Regards ML

[ddubois]

Who mentioned fold equity?

I assumed that is what you were getting at with: "If it is a draw you are willing to call with, it is probably better to raise (i.e, mini-bet - raise!) than call, but then - why not bet a significant, meaningful bet to begin with?" What reason is there to take this line other than fold equity?

Your mini-bet with a draw is essentially a semi-bluff

It's as much buying a free card as it is a semi-bluff, but really, it's neither. It's an action designed to illicit a certain response - that of modifying the reaction of those who might have bet when checked to.

A complete waste of chips.

I disagree.

The fact that it's a small amount (when blinds are low), does not matter.

The fact that's it's a small amount of chips was precisely the reason to do it. It had a probability of reducing the number of chips required to play that street. Neither of us can calculate that probability with any certainty.

Throwing chips away with no reason is a fishy move

They weren't thrown away. They were an investment.

raise when they have something

Like top pair?

If you're saying that by mini-betting you cut-down the amount of chips you'll have to pay in-order to see another card, well, that will work, as I've already stated, against a player that will raise you UNLESS you mini-bet him.

That's what I'm saying.

Who is this player? How do did you put this read on him? What does he hold, or could hold?

The player that will call with Kx.

He doesn't sound like a calling station to me.

Even calling stations bet top pair. I think it likely weak kings would bet more than 15, if and only if, checked to. If bet into, I beleived they would call. Given the number of callers, I think it likely a king was out there. Given the fact that none of them rasied, I think it likely that AK was not out there, ala, a weak king.

What is your chance to take down the pot with a *real* bet

As stated in the original post, 0%. The Kx will call down. Some people will even call down with middle pair.

What is your plan for the turn and river against this player, if you don't hit?

See the river as cheaply as possible, and fold if all three draws missed, call if ace hit, raise 300ish if flush/straight hit. I think Kx calling station will pay off 300 there.

The fact that you're mini-betting from EP because you don't expect the flop to get "checked through 4-5 players", does not make any kind of sense, IMO.

Why not?

Your whole idea of "chasing" in NL SNG is a bit problemtic, even if you get the right pot-odds, but that's not the point here.

I can stop using the term chasing if you prefer. I mean drawing to an unmade hand. I beleive chasing has a connotation of drawing without odds, in which case, you are right, it's the wrong term for me to use, because I intend to only draw with odds.

If they are calling stations, no need to mini-bet to begin with, and you can very easily fold if someone bets at you and you don't have the odds to call.

I think it unlikely Kx would have bet 0 or 15. Again, assign probabilites to the various bet sizes as a I mentioned, and calculate a weighting for "expected bet back to me" if I check. I belevie it likely would have come back to me for more than 15 chips, possibly as much as 10x more, had I not bet.

that's a waste of chips and you achieve nothing

I am confident the play saved chips on this particular hand. In the general case, it might not. It may not save chips against more aggressive opponents, nor would it work at higher stakes. But I thought it would work here, and I was right.

I beleive I have just now realized how to vocalize the core theroem at work here, and this is not something I made up, you can read this verbatim in TOP: Many players have lower betting standards than they do raising standards. The min bet from early position with a draw exploited this phenomina.

[Hood]

Good post ddubois.

I agree with you here, and I think against certain types of player would bet more than the min if checked to, but only call if min-betted to. It will also goes some way to stop a bluff, as I think players are less likely to raise your min-bet than if it was checked to them. This is because that min bet did represent some strength to them.

However I think this will occur too infrequently to be the correct to play. That call from your opponent(s) could mean:

- They have a middle-to-weak made hand such as TPWK and may just call here. They want to go cheaply to the showdown and see if it stands up. In this case, you have no implied odds to your draw, because they'll fold when you make a decent sized bet when you hit. Generally speaking, I think going 'min-bet, min-bet, half-pot bet!!' on the flop, turn and river because you hit on the last card will look rather obvious. Unless he's picked up a second pair he's going to fold.

- His call may mean he has a 'monster' hand which he wants to slow play. If that's the case, the your min-bet meant nothing - you could have probably checked it. He may push you off the hand on the turn whatever you do.

- His call may mean he's also drawing. Again, you could have check-checked this.


A general question ... when we 'increase our variance' with a play like this, presumably it also increases the variance of everyone else in the hand? Is this relevant?

[PrayingMantis]

You made a long list of arguments, very few of them make sense. I won't adress every argument you've made, as I already did it in this very thread several times. However, I believe you have a difficulty in understanding the full meaning and purpose of a bet in a NL (SNG).

I will adress this point you've made:

[ QUOTE ]
I assumed that is what you were getting at with: "If it is a draw you are willing to call with, it is probably better to raise (i.e, mini-bet - raise!) than call, but then - why not bet a significant, meaningful bet to begin with?" What reason is there to take this line other than fold equity?


[/ QUOTE ]

Folding equity, is the EV you gain by the probability your opponent will fold, and by that you'll win the pot uncontested. Against CALLING STATIONS, like you repeatedly describe, you have NO folding equity, and that's the case with any bet you make, most of the time, regardless if it's a pure bluff, huge bluff, small bluff, semi-bluff, or mini-bet semi bluff.

OTOH, It IS, as cited above, better to bet (or raise) with a draw you're willing to call with, against players who MIGHT FOLD to your bet. Otherwise it doesn't achieve much, and against very loose-passive players, it could be a waste of chips (with an increase of variance, which is not desirable in early stages of an SNG). Different moves should be used differently against different opponents.

The "mini-bet with a draw" is, in some basic sense, a semi-bluff. A semi-bluff with 0 folding equity is a bad semi-bluff (I've already adressed this point in this thread, and you can read further about semi-bluffs in TOP, for instance). But you insist there are other reasons to use this "tactic".

Well, we have agreed that the mini-bet with a draw makes no sense against any opponent, except this special one (that I have already mentioned):

The one who when holding some kind of hand (TP bad-kicker) on the flop, will call ANY bet (that's why you think you might make him pay with all his stack later on) but will only CALL, not RAISE (regardless if it's a mini-bet or half your stack).

However, if you only check to him he will BET at you big enough to cut your odds, BUT if you mini-bet at him (a small difference in NL SNG, early rounds), for some strange reason he'll only call, as he'll also do if you had pushed against him. OK. That is some *terrible* player.

(As a side not: there's a problem in assuming that such a *terrible* player is also consistent with what he does, and that's what we're actually assuming here. That's one of the biggest holes in this whole "justification" of this mini-bet move, but I won't get into it now).

So your "mini-bet with a draw" tactic is essentially a way to "beat", or "outplay" this one specific terrible player on the flop. In all other cases (all other calling stations, or all kinds of bad players) it's a waste of chips.

Let me tell you something: you don't need to make these "sophisticated" manouvers against this one type of terrible player. You can wait for a monster, or just a semi-monster, bet hard, let him call with his garbage, and bust him away (if he's not too lucky to outdraw you). The behaviour of this terrible player doesn't justify a mini-bet. If you don't have a hand against him (i.e, you have a draw), you should try to draw as cheaply as you can (for NOTHING that is. Betting yourself, even a mini-bet, is by definition PAYING SOMETHING). If you don't have the odds to draw against him (if he bets at you), fold. Very simple. These terrible players are easy to play against. No need to make these "tricky" mini-bets, that, I repeat, achieve you nothing against any kind of half-decent player, and ARE a waste of chips, even against this terrible player. Terrbile players are terrible because they let you outplay them without using any "smart" manouvers, they simply have WORSE hands than what you have.

Another point, that I made in my OP, is that by doing this move, and keep thinking it's smart, you're learning to use fishy tactics that "work" against the fishiest fish. That's not a way to improve your funtamenatal skills as a NL player, even in the lowest levels. Against the fishiest fish you play strong ABC poker. Against the better players you work on your reading skills, your betting and bluffing tactics, and your overall understanding of the SNG dynamics and strategy. Mini-betting with a draw in a NL SNG does not fit into any of these categories.

To conclude: I believe it's very good to try different tactics and see how they work (mini-betting as well), but keeping making rather weak arguments to justify them, is a bit of a problem. Think about it objectively.

All IMO.

[PrayingMantis]

[ QUOTE ]
However I think this will occur too infrequently to be the correct to play. That call from your opponent(s) could mean:

- They have a middle-to-weak made hand such as TPWK and may just call here. They want to go cheaply to the showdown and see if it stands up. In this case, you have no implied odds to your draw, because they'll fold when you make a decent sized bet when you hit. Generally speaking, I think going 'min-bet, min-bet, half-pot bet!!' on the flop, turn and river because you hit on the last card will look rather obvious. Unless he's picked up a second pair he's going to fold.

- His call may mean he has a 'monster' hand which he wants to slow play. If that's the case, the your min-bet meant nothing - you could have probably checked it. He may push you off the hand on the turn whatever you do.

- His call may mean he's also drawing. Again, you could have check-checked this.


[/ QUOTE ]

These are very good points. In other words, what you say is:

You gain no inforamtion whatsoever by this mini-bet with a draw (and we already know it achieves you 0 folding equity). Hence: waste of chips.


[ QUOTE ]
A general question ... when we 'increase our variance' with a play like this, presumably it also increases the variance of everyone else in the hand? Is this relevant?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, you are correct, that's the big advantage of playing very tight early on. Other players will increase each other's variance, i.e, some will bust, some will double-up, much more frequently than you. So, you'll out-survrive some of the field without doing anything, and when the blinds get big enough, and the field is narrowed you can get into a much more LAGish mode, and also use your previous tight image (if anyone paid attention) to steal more.

As a principal, avoiding show-downs is the way to keep your variance as small as possible. You can of course do that by being the aggressor and hope for a fold, or simply by calling only rarely (see the "coin-flip debate" thread). Note that against loose-passive players, i.e, calling stations (as against bad players in general) your variance might go pretty high, since there will be, relatively, a lot of showdowns. But if you play correctly (strong ABC poker) you should do very very well in terms of ROI.

[PrayingMantis]

[ QUOTE ]
I think you probably take down more pots without a contest than anyone else on here man, never known anyone advocate going all in so much , every time i do it i get called by some comedian with A2o lol.


[/ QUOTE ]

Playing in the 11's (or any low buy-in) as loose-aggressive as Jason plays in later stages of the 215's, is a HUGE mistake. Much bigger mistake than mini-betting with a draw... /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[PrayingMantis]

[ QUOTE ]
I know what he means, these are guys who will call your 30 bet but will bet 200 if checked to.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know what is "these guys". In some posts here you're (and ddubois) talking about calling stations, in others about rather aggressive-tricky players, and sometimes it's a combination of these two types. This is not very consistent, and does not do much to justify or explain the merits of the move.

I completely understand your reasoning for doing it, but the fact is, that this mini-bet is done many times from EP against several opponents. Are they all the same "guys"? I assure you they are not. Even if they are all terrible, they all have different characteristic. And this mini-bet doesn't gain you anything.

[ QUOTE ]
But at 10s you can lead a horse to water and then make him drink too imo.


[/ QUOTE ]

Again, against such horrible player, this mini-bet is a waste of chips for even more reasons. You generally want to bet at them when you have the goods, and they'll call you with marginal garbage. Here you pay yourslef, in order to draw against them, and BY DEFINITION, you are putting your chips in when you are behind, which means: you're donating (even a small amount). I know you assume they'll pay you if you hit (although you can NEVER be sure of it, though, as oppoesed to what you keep saying: that's the whole trick with implied-odds) but until you hit, IF you hit, you are giving chips to the fish, even if you have "the odds". Simple as that.

[mackthefork]

[ QUOTE ]
Playing in the 11's (or any low buy-in) as loose-aggressive as Jason plays in later stages of the 215's, is a HUGE mistake. Much bigger mistake than mini-betting with a draw.../images/graemlins/grin.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

Am I incorrect or does Jason Strasser play 50+5 mainly, I seem to remember him saying so. I can accept a lot of what you say, but I can't accept that going all in with 6BB left, and say ATs, is ever that big of a mistake, my only problem is I keep finding somone with aces or kings. I can't see me ever playing like him at any limit, it's just too scary.

Regards ML

[PrayingMantis]

[ QUOTE ]
Am I incorrect or does Jason Strasser play 50+5 mainly, I seem to remember him saying so. I can accept a lot of what you say, but I can't accept that going all in with 6BB left, and say ATs, is ever that big of a mistake, my only problem is I keep finding somone with aces or kings. I can't see me ever playing like him at any limit, it's just too scary.


[/ QUOTE ]

I believe Jason plays mainly the 109-215. Anyway, of course pushing with AT with 6BB left is an auto move in almost any level (except in some specific circumstances). However, I'm talking about playing extra-aggressive with garabge on the bubble, assuming your opponents will fold almost anything, even if they have raised infront of you with SOME hand, and EVEN if they know you're aggressive. It just isn't worth it for them, if they are good enough to understand that.

This is what I meant when I mentioned Jason's super aggressive play. It can work VERY well at the higher-limits, but can be VERY -$EV in the lower ones, where people will call your garbage with marginal hands, and that's exactly what you'd HATE to see. This is the same as bluffing the unbluffable. Not reccomended. There are better strategies.

[ddubois]

However I think this will occur too infrequently to be the correct to play.

Yea, this is the big question!

In this case, you have no implied odds to your draw, because they'll fold when you make a decent sized bet when you hit.

I'm loathe to keep repeating myself, but I didn't need impied odds, the pot was already giving plenty to pay 15 or 30. I have 4 nut outs, aprox 1.5 outs for a backdoor, and 3 tainted ace outs. So on the turn I had approximately 15 outs, enough for a "real" semi-bluff against good players who can fold (i.e., not $10/1 players).

It will also goes some way to stop a bluff, as I think players are less likely to raise your min-bet than if it was checked to them

Right, so while 15 or 30 is ok, if someone in late position had tried to buy the pot for 100, I would have had to drop. I do see what seems to be purely positional betting pretty often. I was more worried about someone with top pair, but you're astute on this, as there was a nagging preempt-a-positional-bluff in the back of my mind somewhere that I didn't reference directly.

Unless he's picked up a second pair he's going to fold.

It's hard for me to agree with this. It depends on the obviousness of the draw. If the gutshot hits, I'm pretty sure top pair still pays off handsomely. If the flush hits, I might not get as much - but then it's a backdoor, so people might not beleive it as readily and thus still pay off? And if the ace hits, I'll get nearly nothing from any Kx guys, but any Ax guys will pay off. There is clearly some future reward for the risk (but again, the pot was big enough as is).

[ddubois]

You made a long list of arguments, very few of them make sense.

Then I conclude you're either not listening or not thinking. You have made up your mind that you are right, and no one is going to convince you otherwise, least of all not me. This is my last post in this thread, I'm not sure why I let myself get trolled by the likes of you.

You keep mistakenly insisting it's a semi-bluff, but that's not what it was. It's a bet that increases my implied odds - not by increasing the amount of money I would get from players on future rounds, but by reducing the future cost I would have to outlay to continue. (This is exaclty what a free card play does in limit, except it decreases the cost on future streets, whereas this play decreases the cost on this street.)

Why do you refuse to assign probabilities to various "costs back to me"? That's clearly the sole judgement by which the min-bet can be evaluated. It all boils down to this:

1) Do you agree people have lower betting standards than raising standards?
2) Do you think the average amount of chips I would have had to pay (had I checked) on that flop would have been greater than 30?
3) The goal was to see future streets cheaply. Did the min-bet accomplish this?

The correct answer to these questions is 1) absolutely yes, 2) most likely yes, and 3) most likely yes.

[PrayingMantis]

[ QUOTE ]
Then I conclude you're either not listening or not thinking.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's very obvious I'm not thinking. Thank you for pointing it out.

[ QUOTE ]
You have made up your mind that you are right, and no one is going to convince you otherwise

[/ QUOTE ]

I hope this is a joke. You are the only one who argues with me here, and you havn't made even one half-convincing argument. I'm not even speaking about expirience in this game, which is, as it seems, something you have very little of.

[ QUOTE ]
It's a bet that increases my implied odds - not by increasing the amount of money I would get from players on future rounds, but by reducing the future cost I would have to outlay to continue

[/ QUOTE ]

This is fuzzy thinking. Absolutely meaningless argument. You should learn what are "implied odds", before making such a statement. Quite embarrassing, especially since it's obviuos you didn't understand the few arguments I made in this thread ,that dealt with implied odds in regard to this move.

[ QUOTE ]
(This is exaclty what a free card play does in limit, except it decreases the cost on future streets, whereas this play decreases the cost on this street.)

[/ QUOTE ]

You are confusing some limit assumptions with NL and specifically NL SNG principles. It's a completely differrent game, and it seems as if you are very far from understanding it.

[ QUOTE ]
Why do you refuse to assign probabilities to various "costs back to me"? That's clearly the sole judgement by which the min-bet can be evaluated.

[/ QUOTE ]

This argument is ridiculous. Please read (or re-read) this whole thread, from the begining, so you'll understand what I'm talking about, and why "mini-betting with a draw" is a pointless move.

[ QUOTE ]
1) Do you agree people have lower betting standards than raising standards?
2) Do you think the average amount of chips I would have had to pay (had I checked) on that flop would have been greater than 30?
3) The goal was to see future streets cheaply. Did the min-bet accomplish this?

The correct answer to these questions is 1) absolutely yes, 2) most likely yes, and 3) most likely yes.

[/ QUOTE ]

The fact that you are insisting on your faulty NL logic and thinking, has nothing to do with reality, and what are good moves and bad moves in reality. You keep making very very shaky arguments, again and again, without the slightest attept to try and understand why you are wrong.

Please keep mini-betting with draws. It's not a big mistake, it's just a pointless move, and a small waste of chips.


BTW, I must say you are taking all this in an EXTREMELY personal way, almost paranoidic, right from your assumption about why I'm posting this thread, as if I'm only interested in criticizing your play. Believe it or not, I'm not. And I'm VERY ready to be convinced I'm wrong in what I think or post, here, and always. In this case, I'm very very far from it. And frankly, I'm not even too interested in convincing YOU. You should make your own judgement, as every poster here does, and play in the way that fits you best.

Thanks for the replies and the discussion.

[ddubois]

Slight correction: I think I should have said effective odds instead of implied odds. To clarify, I'm talking about this ratio:

(pot + future chips opponent will put in) : (cost to play now + future cost to play)

[pokerstudAA]

I definately agree here. When playing tight in SNG's for the first several rounds I call simply call in EP with almost anything then watch everone fold behind me. Usually the blinds will check, I can mini bet on the flop and they usually fold behind me. With a tight table image the mini bet will definately scare some players off. I am facinated that this one continuously works.

[mackthefork]

I find it hard to disagree with most of what you are saying because it is so obviously true, this move is not great, in fact against decent players it is truely awful, however it definitely works against poor players.

I don't suppose that I can convince you that it's okay, but I think your opinions on the subject are valid and you are not trolling. I think this is basically not as clear cut as you make it sound with your sharp reasoning and concise arguments.

My this thread has developed multiple personalities, reminds me of my thread where i raised 42o in the SB (yuck yuck).

Regards ML

[PrayingMantis]

[ QUOTE ]
I think this is basically not as clear cut as you make it sound with your sharp reasoning and concise arguments.


[/ QUOTE ]

Many things in NL poker are not clear cut. For instance, I am sure that there are few cases where mini-betting in NL SNG can be the optimal move, or close to it. HOWEVER, I'm convinced that MOST of the time, and in most usual situations (not to talk about higher buy-ins), betting a real bet OR checking, are better choices than mini-betting, with a draw or without it. There are some more reasons for it that I hadn't mention in this thread: briefly, it's about playing the same way, in all different cases, and with many different hands.

I know you can argue it's a very minor issue. Mini-bets in early rounds are a small portion of your stack. However, my opinion is that you should have a *reason* for moves you make in this game (this reason could be also something like an "intuition"). You should know why you're doing them, and if they REALLY work, and not "work" "somehow" "against very poor players" "sometimes".

I also fully understand the reason you and others might use the mini-bet and believe it's working well. If you are sure of it - do it. However - there is something very misleading in using it and thinking it's working: That's because in NL, mini-betting is a *weak* move in its very essense. And it's very difficult to say how exactly it helped you. Weak moves can be strong sometimes, but NL gives you the opportunity to play with much more power and decisevenss than any other game. That's why even a check in NL can be frightening, if you use it correctly.

I think that using mini-bets in a routinely way, is clearly a mistake, since checks would do exactly the same job, but cheaper. Using mini-bets in very specific spots, like anything in poker (bluffs, for instance), can be fine, of course. That's my opinion.

[ddubois]

Ludicrous. I said I wouldn't respond, but I can't control myself. To me, PrayingMantis' "sharp and concise arguments" you refer to look like this:

havn't made even one half-convincing argument
you have very little
this is fuzzy thinking
absolutely meaningless argument
you should learn
you didn't understand
you are confusing
very far from understanding
argument is ridiculous
so you'll understand
pointless
your faulty NL logic and thinking
nothing to do with reality
very very shaky arguments
without the slightest attept to try and understand
why you are wrong
pointless waste

I am truly curious if he is capable of directly responding to statements I make without going off on tangentially or wholly-unrelated counter-arguements.

PrayingMantis, can you answer questions with a yes or no? I seriously want to see if you can do it:
<ul type="square"> 1) Do you agree people have lower betting standards than raising standards?
2) Do you think the average amount of chips I would have had to pay (had I checked) on that flop would have been greater than 30?
3) The goal was to see future streets cheaply. Did the min-bet accomplish this?
4) Do you agree the equation (pot + future chips opponent will put in) : (cost to play now + future cost to play) correctly describes effective odds?
5) Do you agree if you can reduce the denominator, by reducing the (future cost to play) variable, your effective odds have improved?
6) Are most of the concepts of poker applicable to multiple game archtypes?[/list]
Again, please, no comments about what I do or don't understand, what NL is all about, what is generally weak or bad based on your pre-conceptions about how the game is to be played. Just answers the questions - 6 yes/no answers will suffice.

[PrayingMantis]

[ QUOTE ]
I said I wouldn't respond, but I can't control myself.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's too bad. Being able to control yourslef is extremely important in poker, as in many areas of life.

I'm not going to answer your "list" of questions, because of a very simple reason: I've already answered ALL of them (Edit: or better - all the RELEVANT ones), during the course of this thread, in various posts and in various forms. This WHOLE thread was about this "list" of questions. It's a pity you are too angry/edgy/whatever to notice it, but I'd suggest you read it all from the begining, and use a poker dictionary if you need one. And then, make your own judgement. I'm sure you are capable of it.

When you are done with reading it, move on. I've answered your replies here, and others', several times, and with much detail, as I usually do. I'm ready to discuss NEW and DIFFERENT aspects of this issue, that weren't discussed yet (there are many). However, You are showing an ENORMOUS refusal to think and discuss this game in a serious, objective manner. And I must say: it's not the first time. You have a long long way to go, believe me, but it doesn't seem you're willing to take even the few first steps.

Gl, whatever betting strategy you choose to apply.

[ddubois]

Yup, board troll.

[PrayingMantis]

[ QUOTE ]
Yup, board troll.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, that's what I am. Great reading skills. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

I'm sure everyone here is grateful now, since you have uncovered me! /images/graemlins/mad.gif

I wonder what is your next mission? I hear there are some big-time trolls at the pot &amp; No-limit forum too... /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[ddubois]

[ QUOTE ]
*** You are ignoring this user ***

[/ QUOTE ]
This is by far the best response I've read from this user.

[PrayingMantis]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
*** You are ignoring this user ***

[/ QUOTE ]This is by far the best response I've read from this user.

[/ QUOTE ]

Farewell, my friend! /images/graemlins/grin.gif

Too bad you can't read this post, though... /images/graemlins/frown.gif

I wonder if you'll reply to it without reading it? /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[pokerstudAA]

Do not dispute the power of the mini bet. I dont know what this guy was thinking but when he mini bet I figured that he had a J and I had a really chap shot to bet him. He sure was pissed after I cleaned him out. Can anyone figure out why he decided to make this play? I think he figured no one would beat his hand and he would extract one more little bet from the remaining players???


Party Poker No-Limit Hold'em Tourney, Big Blind is t15 (10 handed)

MP2 (t580)
MP3 (t610)
Hero (t775)
Button (t830)
SB (t755)
BB (t700)
UTG (t1475)
UTG+1 (t280)
UTG+2 (t770)
MP1 (t1225)

Preflop: Hero is CO with 3/images/graemlins/heart.gif, 3/images/graemlins/spade.gif.
<font color="CC3333">UTG raises to t30</font>, UTG+1 folds, UTG+2 calls t30, MP1 folds, MP2 folds, MP3 folds, <font color="CC3333">Hero raises to t60</font>, Button folds, SB folds, BB calls t45, UTG calls t30, UTG+2 calls t30.

Flop: (t250) J/images/graemlins/spade.gif, J/images/graemlins/diamond.gif, 4/images/graemlins/spade.gif <font color="blue">(4 players)</font>
BB checks, UTG checks, <font color="CC3333">UTG+2 bets t15</font>, Hero calls t15, BB folds, UTG folds.

Turn: (t280) 3/images/graemlins/club.gif <font color="blue">(2 players)</font>
<font color="CC3333">UTG+2 bets t695 (All-In)</font>, Hero calls t695.

River: (t1670) A/images/graemlins/club.gif <font color="blue">(2 players, 1 all-in)</font>

Final Pot: t1670
<font color="green">Main Pot: t1670 (t1670), between Hero and UTG+2.</font> &gt; <font color="white">Pot won by Hero (t1670).</font>

Results in white below: <font color="white">
UTG+2 shows Jc Qc (three of a kind, jacks).
Hero shows 3h 3s (full house, threes full of jacks).
Outcome: Hero wins t1670. </font>

[PrayingMantis]

Since you've posted it here, I'll tell you what I think, in regard to what we are talking about here.

First, what is the purpose of your small re-raise PF with 33 from CO, After a min-raise from UTG, and a caller in between? What are you trying to achieve? You have a very mediocre hand, you surely can have a chance to see the flop rather cheaply from a good position, against UTG who MIGHT have a hand he'll pay you with if you hit a set, so your mini-raise achieves you absolutely nothing. Call behind. With hands like 33 at this level you should aim at seeing flops as cheaply as possible.

His mini-bet on the flop is not a mini-bet with a draw, but rather "I'm weak!!" mini-bet, with flopped trips. It is a slow play, and a bad one, since there is a flush draw on the board. Your call is good. You don't need to fold to 15 when the pot is 250, and if you HIT, you might take his whole stack.

Turn: Perfect ending. Very nice! /images/graemlins/grin.gif

So, I don't see any reason to make your initial small re-raise, and his mini-bet on the flop was a clear mistake. He should have played it stronger, especially when there are 3 more players around.

[pokerstudAA]

I sometimes raise a bit from a late position with the small pairs. If someone was slowplaying a big AA KK they will usually reraise and I can get away cheaply. It usually gets the button to fold and if I dont hit the set on the flop I can get it checked back to me and have a free shot on the turn. If I hit the set on the flop people usually put you on higher cards or a different hand. 33 might not be the best hand to make this play but 88 or 99 can work out nicely. Mabye I should reconsider this one. Thanks!