River Value Bets

[TJD]

Can someomne help unravel this apparent paradox?

I have been looking for ways to increase my river aggression by value betting. My AF river is very low; only 1.05

I did some analysis on my PT database today and was very puzzled!

When I bet/raised or CR the river the wins greatly out numbered the losses as you would expect.

When I check/called I won about 1/3 of the hands (I often try to induce river bluffs)

When I called a bet into me I won about 37% of the time so although it looks like I could make a bit more by raising here with my more marginal hands, I often choose not to since if it IS a bluff they will fold and if they have a hand I may be reraised. (perhaps I need to SP more to the river?)

However, the one that blew my mind was when I checked it through. I thought that THIS would be then area where I was losing EV. I check in fear /images/graemlins/frown.gif and the opponent turns over a weaker hand with which they would have called.

However my won/lost numbers here were identical. On the basis that 5/10 players do not throw away hands that I beat, I would have gained nothing by betting all these rivers and in fact if the opponent was planning to CR me and I felt obliged to call, I would have LOST money.

All this data seems counter to the "bet the river" mantra.

If I had bet every river that was checked through and assuming they (just) called every one, my AF would be twice as high but I would have made no more money.

If they were actually bright enough to throw away all the absolutely hopeless ones and only call with the mediocre upwards then I would have lost money.

What am I missing here?

Cheers

Trevor

[fyodor]

Some of the rivers that were checked through you may have won with a worse hand by betting and having them fold. That's all that comes to my mind right off the top.

[ZZZ]

[ QUOTE ]
However, the one that blew my mind was when I checked it through.


[/ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
my won/lost numbers here were identical.


[/ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I would have gained nothing by betting all these rivers


[/ QUOTE ]

What a strange thing to say. Betting every river when checked to is obviously a bad strategy. Of course you would lose money by doing that. Aside from the occasinal bluff, you should just be betting your good hands.

The numbers you pulled out of PokerTracker don't seem particularly useful to me.

ZZZ

[TJD]

OK - I think I have solved it. Amazing what a quick walk does. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

I am out for the evening now, but I'll post where I think the confusion came from and why I AM missing value bets. (A hint is that the checked thro ratio should see me winning 1/3 rather than 1/2).

However, even with the new voew, it is hard to see my AF River getting above 1.5 or so and still be profitable.

Till tomorow.

Trevor

[TJD]

In case anyone is interested, here is my solution to the paradox. If anyone thinks this "solution" is wrong please let me know. It is important /images/graemlins/smile.gif.

I won a lot when I bet and a fair amount when I called but when it was checked through, I was almost exactly 50:50 win/lose. This led me to believe that there would be no value in betting those hands that I currently check...... WRONG!! /images/graemlins/grin.gif

Let's assume that my opponent and I both bet the "obvious" hands. The ones that are not bet are the ones where we are not sure there is value to be had. By the river, we will have hit a pair about 50% of the time or so (let's call it 50%).

On this basis we will have:-

Neither a pair 0.5 x 0.5 = 1/4
I pair - him not 1/4
Him pair - I not 1/4
Both Pair 1/4

Since we did not bet the river, we should assume that the pair in question is marginal.

I get 50% wins because:-

If neither pair, we have 50/50 to have the high card
The one who has paired wins/ the other loses
If both pair, the higher pair wins so 50/50

This would give me 50/50 win/lose. However, as a tighter player, I probably have better cards in my hand so I will probably win the high card and pair v pair matchup more often. This would need the opponent to get to the river with a poor pair and fail to bet it more often. That is probably a reasonable assumption.

So, what will happen if I bet these marginal hands more often? Assume, I will still not be betting high cards and neither will they so I will win 50% of the high card matchups and lose all the hands when THEY have a pair and I do not.

That leaves the weak pair hands that I currently check.

Of these, 50% of the time I will be against no pair and I will either win without a SD or I will get a call from a high card.

The other 50% of the paired hands, I will be against another pair and let's assume I win 50% of those.

This would give me a "checked through" win rate of just 25%, losing to all his pairs he did not bet and 50% of hands when we are both without a pair. On the other hand I will have a "bet" win rate of 75% (not always getting a BB out of the opponent but I will win some)

If I had bet ALL my pairs in this situation, I would have increased my river bets by 50% of all these "checked hands".

That would bring me up to an AF (river) of about 1.5

I also think that I would increase my EV as well since:-

a) I will get some calls from high card hands
b) Most of the time, my starting cards are better, so I will win the pair v pair battle more than 50% of the time.

The risk of course is getting raised.

If you bet "thin" for value, do you normally call raises?

Trevor

[helpmeout]

1.05 is pitiful.

Dont try to induce bluffs just bet the river 90% of the time.

I usually only check/call on the river when i have 3rd or 4th pair against a calling station, usually with a bad kicker or A high.