Any reason not to bet the pot?

[BonJoviJones]

In Cloutiers's book, he talks about only betting the pot, never underbetting in ring PL games. This makes a lot of sense to me.

What is the accepted norm for this? In the PL game I play sometimes betting the pot is rarely done on later streets, but none of us really have a clue.

if you agree about only betting the pot, what do you think of raising only the maximum?

I'm not sure that there is such a thing as an "accepted norm" but always raising the max is totally reasonable IMHO for the same reasons C gives for only betting the bot.

I'm VERY interested in views on this. In the online pot-limit games I play, people rarely bet the pot. This is mainly because they are fearful I think.

Anyway, thats irrelevant, what I really want to know is what are Cloutier's reasons for always betting the pot? To me, this seems intuitively dumb and needlessly rigid. I always thought 'bet-sizing' was part of the skill of big-bet games.

I've seen the following sort of thing:

100 in the pot. A player who normally bets the pot when he bets all of a sudden bets 20 instead of a 100.

For some players this means they have the nuts and they are afraid that you may fold if they bet too much. If you have noticed this then it's nice for you, just fold.

For other players this means they have some really weak hand (say third pair at the river) but since everyone else has checked for the last 2 betting rounds they figure they can bet their crappy hand for value (risky and foolish but I have seen it done). Again, if you've noticed this it's nice for you, just raise the pot and take it down.

For other players this means nothing. They vary their bet size sometimes just to confuse the oppposition.

Cloutiers point (a valid one) is that if you always bet the pot no one can ever put that kind of a tell on you and betting the pot is always a reasonable amount to bet (what's the point of betting 20 into a 100 pot). There's nothing wrong with the practice of varying the size of your bets itself but you may end up outsmarting yourself if you're not careful so why take the chance.

I don't play online myself so I can't comment on what they do there but if players are varying their bet size, pay close attention and you may pick up a valuable tell. My advice is not to get too fancy yourself. Always bet the pot, if you have the best hand make them pay, if you're bluffing make them think before calling you. Good luck!

[Greg (FossilMan)]

Bet-sizing is part of the skill. However, it is clearly a potential tell on you. The question is whether you can size your bets to influence their decision in your favor better than they can read your bet sizes to influence their decision in their favor. Until you're sure you can size your bets advantageously, always betting/raising the pot is a good strategy, as it is clearly unreadable. Now they can only judge your demeanor and such to put a read on you.

Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)

[Ray Zee]

naw, you make the bet the size that it does what you want it to do. its a tool you can use for your advantage. of course you need not to establish a pattern, lest you get read too well. but its great to get loose calls or to use for cheap bluffs. if you are good at reading hands you can bet enough to not give the draw hand odds but not enough to run him off. anyone that only bets the pot is using only half the tools in their box.

While bet sizing can be a useful tool in the hands of top players I think saying that always betting the pot is "using only half the tools in their box" is an excaggeration.

I've never seen Cloutier play but if he does always bet the pot like he says he does in his book then would you say that he's only using half the tools in his box? That kind of criticism would seem be unjustified since Cloutier's considered to be one of the worlds top players. If it's good enough for Cloutier ...

I would say it's more a matter of style. A similar issue is talking at the table. Some top players will babble on after making a big bet while other top players will freeze and be silent. You could argue that the silent player who freezes is only using half the tools in his box and could gain much my using calculated babbling to throw off his opponents but is that justified? If it were true then wouldn't you see more top players doing this?

I'm glad to have some people agree with me. I am conscious of the danger of giving out info with my bet-sizes.. but my small bets can be either begging for a call OR a sign of weakness, and my pot bets can be either a monster or a bluff.

From a namby-pamby point of view, I think pots get plenty big enough in pot-limit without feeling bound by a rigid strategy (or by machismo) to bet the whole lot on the end.

In answer to (I think) Maniakk, online you see a whole lot of minimum bets and raises throughout hands, from a lot of players. Or at least you do where I play, and it makes me one of the most aggressive players despite being a bit of a wuss at heart :-)

Upon further reflection I realized that I sometimes also raise less than the pot.

An example would be a 10 player game, I'm on the button with say 10sJs, only one player in front of me has folded (the game I play in is very passive) I might put in a raise that's small enough that almost everyone calls. My thinking would be that I want everyone in the hand, I want to build the pot in case I hit a perfect flop and the game is wimpy enough that it's not likely that someone will reraise. And I have also been known to try a cheap bluff (tactic mentioned by Ray).

I still don't think that always betting the pot is a big tactical flaw but perhaps a small one.

[Greg (FossilMan)]

TJ may be one of the best tourney players in the game, but in cash games, he's not at all one of the world's top players.

Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)

[Ray Zee]

maniakk says-- I think saying that always betting the pot is "using only half the tools in their box" is an excaggeration.


ray says-no, i stand by that comment

maniakk says--I've never seen Cloutier play but if he does always bet the pot like he says he does in his book then would you say that he's only using half the tools in his box? That kind of criticism would seem be unjustified since Cloutier's considered to be one of the worlds top players. If it's good enough for Cloutier ...

ray says-- ive played with tj for 20 years. and he doesnt play like what the book says. plus in the cash games he tends to play with shorter money so bigger bets would be in order.

maniakk says--I would say it's more a matter of style. A similar issue is talking at the table. Some top players will babble on after making a big bet while other top players will freeze and be silent. You could argue that the silent player who freezes is only using half the tools in his box and could gain much my using calculated babbling to throw off his opponents but is that justified? If it were true then wouldn't you see more top players doing this?

ray says-- the top players do babble at the weaker ones and it does produce results. against the better players it pays to shut up.

[Mark W]

PLO is a game where you often have the nuts and you desire to make the most out of it. In the game I play in in Tunica there are people that would not call a river bet for the pot ( avg around $1200-$3000) but will always look you up for a modest bet, because they will justify the call because its cheap. There are also players that I will check the nuts into because they either can't stand two checks or they think you are weak. Early raises though I think a pot size raise is usually OK because you want to build a pot if you hit.

Just my $.02

Greg, look fwd to seeing you next week

"ray says-- ive played with tj for 20 years. and he doesnt play like what the book says. plus in the cash games he tends to play with shorter money so bigger bets would be in order."

I've played (pot-limit) poker for a living for 1½ years now. TJ's book changed the way I play potlimit hold'em. If the book contains harmful advise that TJ himself don't follow, then I would like to know about it, please.

One example: Before, when I raised with AK and got one caller behind me, I would lead out on most small flops. Now, after reading the book, I will usually check the flop when missing.

Please give some example of bad advise in his book "championship no-limit and pot-limit holdem".

Thank you.

[Phat Mack]

I think that mixing up bet sizes is one of the greatest skills a PL player can have, but it's not easy to do. I've noticed that the great players seem to have a sort of random bet generator. When they bet short at you, it's tough to tell whether you're being milked or pre-empted. I resolved earlier this year to learn how to do this, but so far I haven't had much luck. It's tougher than it seems.

[Big Dave D]

Maniakk,

Ray is right on the money...it is a big weakness. Also note that he mentioned that TJ doesnt play as he describes. I am fairly sure, although I dont know the US scene at all, that all good players vary the bet size. Ive spoken with players whom I consider to be top class in the UK, and they pointed out a player's weakness by illustrating "they always bet the pot". Of course you have to disguise your hand and vary your play so it doesnt become a predicter of hand value. Varying bet size is especially useful if you are playing an aggressive style as you can start to bet small when you dont have and also bet small when you have, both with useful advantages depending on your opponent.

GL

[Ray Zee]

josef,

i didnt say there was bad advice in the book. and i didnt say all of it was correct. i didnt make any opinion as to that. only to how tj plays. and i didnt say anything bad about his play as i admire it. i try not to criticize other people's play that do not ask.

[Bozeman]

My sense from TJ's book was that he was giving the basic advice (which was great for me then), but that (he realized that) players with more experience learn "when to break the rules". I remember thinking when I first read it that many of the plays described didn't look like what I'd seen the few times I'd seen TJ play. With years of experience, you can treat each hand as unique, but when you are learning you need to limit the number of things that you have to think about (for example, see S&M's discussion of starting hand groups in HPFAP).

Craig

Thanks for your responses Ray, I defer to your better knowledge and greater experience.

I used to vary my bet size all the time (mind you I was playing NL not PL), I started playing PL this year, read TJs book and thought that always betting the pot in PL (or at least almost always) made sense and have been doing just that. Now I'm going to have to give this issue lots of thought.

If you don't mind taking the time to answer I have 2 questions for you on this subject.

1) I read somewhere that Phil Hellmuth freezes and stares into space when making a big bet. Not knowing if this is true my question is that does he do this only against strong players and babble into the weaker ones instead?

2) Phat Mack in a comment below says that the great players seem to have some kind of random bet generator. My guess is that top players may give the impression of betting random amounts but is only seems that way and there is reason behind their randomness. What do you say?

I don't think you should panic and suddenly think 'Shoot, some of the advice in that book is Wrong'. Especially if you've played pot limit successfully for over a year.

Different styles have different strengths and weaknesses. Someone who always bets the pot at me will give me a lot of hard (potentially costly) decisions and challenge my scaredy-cat side. But their variance will also be high I would have thought.

The game you're in is also a factor - if it takes a pot size bet to be taken seriously, then so be it.

I am more likely to bet pot or close to it early in the hand, but less so when the pot is large on the turn and/or river.

[Ray Zee]

i havent seen phil play much pot limit except in tournaments and thats a different game.

good players vary their bets making it look random but each time it has a purpose. against the weaker players it makes them do what you want them to do. against the better players it keeps them from reading you well. so does always betting the pot but that limits the times you need to bet less for good reasns like getting paid off on a hand.

how about when there is 4000 in the pot and you feel your opponent would only call 1500. and knows you may make smaller than pot sized bets and bluffs. according to some you need to bet the pot here and lose out on 1500. for what reason? it happens all the time where players will pay off smaller bets. same with being able to make smaller bluffs. if you have to make a pot sized bluff every time your bluffs may show a big loss rather than a gain.

I see your point. I think this is a fascinating subject and you and others in this forum have certainly given me something to think about. Thankyou, I appreciate it!