is this 'betting for value'?

[strategem]

Hello
My third thread here -

Have read Lee Jones, and it has helped my play. He mentions the concept of 'betting for value' but doesn't go into it too deply. I am trying to understand the following play in light of this concept. I am a RAW beginner (about 40 total hours) saw my $100 go to $5 at Paradise .50/1.00(lol) bought Lee Jones and now I am hovering around $40...still making mistakes, and I KNOW I can get a lot better. Things are totally different since I read Jones.

I am traderNik. (Don't beat me up too bad tomorrow, okay?)

Game #272750536 - $0.50/$1 Texas Hold'em - 2003/02/13-12:29:59 (CST)
Table "Freeport" (real money) -- Seat 1 is the button
Seat 1: donnie123 ($41 in chips)
Seat 2: CDMcQueen ($13 in chips)
Seat 3: meandean ($25 in chips)
Seat 4: traderNik ($39.75 in chips)
Seat 5: brnxboy ($127 in chips)
Seat 6: Titleist_TB ($22.25 in chips)
Seat 7: billydalton ($30.25 in chips)
Seat 8: vwbug ($18.25 in chips)
Seat 9: kempo ($20.75 in chips)
Seat 10: STYXON ($13.25 in chips)
CDMcQueen: Post Small Blind ($0.25)
meandean: Post Big Blind ($0.50)
Dealing...
Dealt to traderNik [ Js ]
Dealt to traderNik [ Ac ]
traderNik: Call ($0.50)
brnxboy : Fold
Titleist_TB: Fold
billydalton: Fold
vwbug : Call ($0.50)
kempo : Fold
STYXON : Fold
donnie123: Raise ($1)
CDMcQueen: Fold
meandean: Call ($0.50)
traderNik: Call ($0.50)
vwbug : Call ($0.50)
*** FLOP *** : [ Jd 6h Qc ]
meandean: Check
traderNik: Check
vwbug : Check
donnie123: Bet ($0.50)
meandean: Call ($0.50)
traderNik: Call ($0.50)
vwbug : Call ($0.50)
*** TURN *** : [ Jd 6h Qc ] [ 4c ]
meandean: Check
traderNik: Check
vwbug : Check
donnie123: Bet ($1)
meandean: Call ($1)
traderNik: Call ($1)
vwbug : Call ($1)
*** RIVER *** : [ Jd 6h Qc 4c ] [ Ts ]
STYXON said, "Cheers all from denmark !"
meandean: Check
traderNik: Check
vwbug : Check
donnie123: Bet ($1)
meandean: Fold
traderNik: Fold
vwbug : Call ($1)
*** SUMMARY ***
Pot: $11.75 | Rake: $0.50
Board: [ Jd 6h Qc 4c Ts ]
donnie123 bet $3.50, collected $11.75, net +$8.25 (showed hand) [ Ad Kd ] (a straight, ten to ace)
CDMcQueen lost $0.25 (folded)
meandean lost $2.50 (folded)
traderNik lost $2.50 (folded) [ Js Ac ] (a pair of jacks)
brnxboy didn't bet (folded)
Titleist_TB didn't bet (folded)
billydalton didn't bet (folded)
vwbug lost $3.50 [ Ah Jh ] (a pair of jacks)
kempo didn't bet (folded)
STYXON didn't bet (folded)

Now..the first question is - is my call on the flop wrong? (Maybe my thinking was... 'Any Ace and any Jack is probably ok - even if vwbug folds behind me, there are 10.5 $0.50 bets in the pot, my odds assuming any J or A is okay are 5/47 = 1/9.4 - right?).

This brings up another quesiton that isn't explicitly dealt with in Jones - I am assuming that on the flop, I calculate pot odds according to the current bet size - that is, if there are 6 bets $0.50 bets in the pot pre-flop, and on the flop 1 player bets ahead of me, I must calculate that there are 7 bets in the pot, since I must pay only 0.50 to call - I can only call if my odds are equal or better.. This changes when the bets go up to $1.. right?

I want to understand donnie123's play - is this 'betting for value? How many outs does he have here? Any 10, but are aces considered outs too, because he has the high kicker? (Trying to undeerstand his pot odds calculations, whether conscious or intuitive). I wouldn't have thought that betting hard like this is recommended, considering he has nothing until the end. I understand that maybe he had a read on the texture of the game and was betting with that in mind.

Here is a hand in which I act differently at the end. The crucial question (I think??) is - was my check on the river a mistake?
Game #272749021 - $0.50/$1 Texas Hold'em - 2003/02/13-12:22:52 (CST)
Table "Freeport" (real money) -- Seat 2 is the button
Seat 1: donnie123 ($41.75 in chips)
Seat 2: CDMcQueen ($12.25 in chips)
Seat 3: meandean ($22.25 in chips)
Seat 4: traderNik ($43 in chips)
Seat 5: brnxboy ($126 in chips)
Seat 6: Titleist_TB ($19.50 in chips)
Seat 7: billydalton ($29.50 in chips)
Seat 8: vwbug ($17.75 in chips)
Seat 9: kempo ($21.25 in chips)
Seat 10: SSDKILLER ($3.25 in chips)
meandean: Post Small Blind ($0.25)
traderNik: Post Big Blind ($0.50)
Dealing...
Dealt to traderNik [ Kh ]
Dealt to traderNik [ Qd ]
brnxboy : Call ($0.50)
Titleist_TB: Fold
billydalton: Fold
vwbug : Fold
kempo : Fold
SSDKILLER: Fold
donnie123: Fold
CDMcQueen: Call ($0.50)
meandean: Fold
traderNik: Raise ($0.50)
brnxboy : Call ($0.50)
CDMcQueen: Call ($0.50)
*** FLOP *** : [ Ac 5s Jc ]
traderNik: Bet ($0.50)
brnxboy : Call ($0.50)
CDMcQueen: Call ($0.50)
*** TURN *** : [ Ac 5s Jc ] [ 4h ]
traderNik: Bet ($1)
brnxboy : Call ($1)
CDMcQueen: Fold
*** RIVER *** : [ Ac 5s Jc 4h ] [ Ah ]
traderNik: Check
brnxboy : Bet ($1)
traderNik: Fold
brnxboy : Winner -- doesn't show cards
*** SUMMARY ***
Pot: $6.50 | Rake: $0.25
Board: [ Ac 5s Jc 4h Ah ]
donnie123 didn't bet (folded)
CDMcQueen lost $1.50 (folded)
meandean lost $0.25 (folded)
traderNik lost $2.50 (folded) [ Kh Qd ] (a pair of aces)
brnxboy bet $3.50, collected $7.50, net +$4
Titleist_TB didn't bet (folded)
billydalton didn't bet (folded)
vwbug didn't bet (folded)
kempo didn't bet (folded)
SSDKILLER didn't bet (folded)



I have started downloading my hand histories two days ago (finally)... there are a lot of hands that I would love to have analyzed - perhaps I can post a few more if it is not considered bad form here. Too bad there's nothing I can offer in return...except money to a coach I suppose, but I want to believe I can make it without that kind of help /forums/images/icons/smile.gif

If any veterans needs guitar lessons for their kids in the Toronto area, LET ME KNOW! Thanks for anyone who can respond.

[Ed Miller]

You should post your hands in the Small Stakes forum... and post them in the style of all the other hands posted... don't post the raw hand histories. They are difficult to read. /forums/images/icons/smile.gif

On hand 1: Your discussion of pot odds ignores the fact that you may have the best hand on the flop (which you did). I think you played ok... it's a tricky situation. As for how your opponent played his AK... he has overcards and a gutshot giving him potentially as many as 10 outs. It is often correct to play this hand relatively aggressively. BTW, I hope you were planning to call on the river if a T didn't hit.

Hand 2: I think you played fine.

[strategem]

damn

I remember you taking the time to respond to my first posts here. Sorry about the formatting - I will definitely change it.

You say post in small stakes? Okay.. I thought that these were such obvious newbie questions, but I will follow your advice.

Thanks for the analysis. Yes, I would have called on the river for sure if the ten hit. Re: pot odds... so you approach them differently if you think you have the best hand? You are not constantly calculating the hand that you are trying to 'make'? Thanks

[Ed Miller]

You say post in small stakes? Okay.. I thought that these were such obvious newbie questions, but I will follow your advice.

I would post hands in the Small Stakes forum... it gets more traffic. Ask newbie theory questions and such here... at least that's what I would do.

Calculating pot odds is very useful if you know that you need to improve to win the pot. Counting your outs to improve is always important to do... but you have to understand that if there is a chance that you have the best hand, you need to continue with hands that you don't have "odds" to continue with.

For instance, it would be ludicrous to routinely fold an unimproved AA because you only have two outs to improve. A more reasonable example is unimproved overcards... especially a big Ace... headsup. Say you raise first in from the button with AK and only the BB calls. The flop comes three low cards and your opponent bets into you. Well, there are fewer than six bets in the pot, and you only have six outs to improve, so you are about 7-1 to improve. Folding here would be ludicrous, though... as your opponent may be betting a draw or less to steal from you because the flop likely missed you. You should frequently be calling all the way to the river (and calling on the end as well) in this situation, even if your AK never improves... it will often be enough to win unimproved.

That said, I think your AJ hand was a tricky hand... I generally dislike playing a hand the way you did (limp, call, call, call) but there isn't an obviously better way to play that hand as far as I'm concerned.

[gonores]

A quick point on calculating pot odds. You calculate the ratio of success to failure, not success to total cards. Therefore, on your first hand, your pot odds would be 5:42, or 1:8.4.

You also did have a "made hand" on the first hand, so to speak (2nd pair, top kicker). Figuring out where you are compared to everyone else on the table with aggressive play and hand reading is more important than anything else. That is why it is critical to bet with your hand on the flop. You gain more info on someone when that person has to make choice of either folding, calling or raising than you do when he either checks or bets. Once you are fairly certain that you dont have the best hand, you can start thinking about pot odds.

You played your 2nd hand just fine.

[strategem]

hi gonores

sheesh, must be past my bedtime - what did I say, 5:47?? Thanks for pointing out my mistake - in the morning, I actually know to subtract the 'out' cards from the total, thereby deriving the correct ratio.

The concept of betting out to get info as you described is something that I have just begun to understand - I now know why people are betting aggressively when they are forced to act first - it is to get the info you mention, right? Thanks a lot for examining my badly formatted hand history.

I have noticed that the biggest mistake I make is to play a strong hand too long - to hold on to it in the face of strong evidence of a better hand. - especially when I flop a set. Lately I have seen so much betting for no reason, so much attempted bluffing, that I have been sucked into staying in to make sure the bluffers don't get my chips - of course they aren't bluffing when I stay in /forums/images/icons/smile.gif So... I can get the info I need but stay in anyway. This accounts for almost all my memorable losses.

majorkong - will reply in the a.m.

[strategem]

hi majorkong
"I would post hands in the Small Stakes forum... it gets more traffic. Ask newbie theory questions and such here... at least that's what I would do."

Then that's what I will do too.

What you said about the implied odds holding AA makes sense and it helps a lot.

"Say you raise first in from the button with AK and only the BB calls. The flop comes three low cards and your opponent bets into you. Folding here would be ludicrous, though... as your opponent may be betting a draw or less to steal from you because the flop likely missed you."

Aha!! Now this helps, because I had NOT been playing these kinds of hands this way. This and your comments about limp,call,call,call brings up another question.

I, too, dislike playing hands this way, if only because I see how other winning players play, and it's usually not by checking and calling. At most tables, here's what I find. Let's say I am in the SB with AKo. There's a raise in front and 4 end up calling. The flop comes low cards with no connectors, i.e. 2 6 9 rainbow. The first bettor to act checks, next to act is the "BIG BETTOR". This individual, in cases like this, ALWAYS BETS. I mean ALWAYS. I have watched this and I think "Well, he can't always be matching these low cards", but Jones has suggested that I always look for a reason to get out. So I often fold. (Just what he wants, right?).The funny thing is, if I try this technique, I almost always get RAISED by someone or the other, probably the same type of player. Anyway, not sure what I am asking here, but I do sense that limp - call - call - call is not the best way to win money. How do you deal with individuals like this? (By getting a read on them by seeing the cards they end up showing - Ed.)

[Ed Miller]

I don't have a good answer for your question because there are lots of variables. I will tell you that when you have few opponents and have raised before the flop, it's often correct to continue to bet unimproved overcards. If you have many opponents, though, then it is generally correct to check and assume you are behind when calculating whether you should continue.

While I think Lee Jones's book is fine for players who are new to studying the game... you should realize that the "fit or fold" advice he gives is simplified and a bit weak-tight (and therefore not optimal). I think it's just fine to play that way when starting out... as if you push marginal situations you will probably pick the wrong ones and end up losing more money than if you had played more conservatively. As you gain experience, though, you will get a better feeling for when your weak hand (like a small unimproved pocket pair, for instance) is still best hand and you need to be pushing it. There's no good way to teach this in a book, though... this is why playing experience is so important.

[strategem]

hi majorkong

Thanks again. after reading over my question to you, I realized that there are 100 questions such as this which I could ask but which are tough to answer with anything other than - 'play a lot and try to figure it out'.

I am trying to make all my sessions 'look' like my winning ones in terms of my percentage of raise-bet vs. check-call. Again, I have no idea yet whether this is going to be an accurate measure, but it seems to me that when I have a good session then look at my stats, I am raising and betting more - the passive sessions seem to be the ones which are break-even or losing. I am thinking of opening another account at Ultimate simply because of the lower limits available there, but I don't think they give stats there. Another thing I have noticed is that I rarely have a losing day session at PP, and it's tough for me to have a winning night session there. Trying to figure this one out too /forums/images/icons/smile.gif

As always, thanks a LOT for taking the time to respond.

[snakehead]

value betting is a hard concept for beginners to understand, mostly because it doesn't come up as often in low limit games. when you have played for a while, you will understand it better and will utilize it more. meanwhile, here's an example from last night:

one limper, I raised in the cutoff with AQ. the flop is QJ6. he checked, I bet, he called. turn a 9, same action. river a K. final board is QJ69K. he checked, I bet. not because I was trying to represent a straight, but because I thought I probably had the best hand. that is a value bet.

[strategem]

hi snakehead

Excellent - that is what I was looking for - thanks for the example. I can see what you eman about this not coming up as much in low-limit games - I assume you mean that with 3 or more players in until the end on every hand, you have less chance of determining that your hand is likely the best.

[Dynasty]

...mostly because it doesn't come up as often in low limit games.

This isn't true. In fact, I think it comes up more often in low limits which are loaded with players who will pay off with worse hands regardless of how dangerous the board is and how much strength you've shown.

Winning in low-limit games is much more about betting and raising with the best hand than middle limit games are (and I assume high limit games). At higher limits, more of your earn (compared to low-limit games) comes from winning pots which your cards aren't entitled to- an option which often isn't available in low-limit games.

[Fitz]

You made reference to losing with sets in a earlier post, and you did it again here. I wanted to address that. There is a saying, "If you lose with a set, you better lose a lot." This means you have to play your set fast, and if you lose you are going to lose a lot because of this. A set is a very good hand, and it has the potential to turn in to a powerhouse. Think, about it this way, you hold JcJd and the flop comes Jh 10h 3h; you've flopped top set on a scary board, but you have great odds to improve even if you KNOW your opponet has his flush. There are 7 cards in the deck to make your boat on the turn, and 10 to make it on the river if you miss the turn. This means you will virtually always take your set to the river; if you fill up the flushes will pay you off. Also, on less coordinated boards you will have the best hand the vast majority of the time. And, you will see your set hold up against those coordinated boards more often than you might think.

Good luck,

[strategem]

hi dynasty

The one thing I know for sure is... I am still waiting for the odds to even themselves out, i.e. still waiting to burn those incredibly loose players who are in with hands which are worse... to begin with. When I first got into this, I got a kick out of all the people who posted wondering whether these games are fixed. 40 hours later, I know exactly how they feel, although I still can't believe that the games aren't legit. It just happens to me time and time again, playing by the book, that I get beaten i.e. heads up by a player who needed runner - runner to beat my AK pocket with A-K 6 flop. The maniac is in all the way with 74o and gets his cards. Just like that. I would LOVE to bet and raise with the best hand, but my poker book has me out so much of the time. I am taking a lot of comfort from Fitz, who has graciously shared his experiences on this thread, describing his current cold streak. Nothing I have seen posted here got my attention as much as this single line, and any beginner who is struggling at all should read it.

Anyhow, thanks a lot for your comments - I will let this debate play itself out and I'll be watching with interest.

[strategem]

Hey Fitz

Yeah, thanks for the reminder - Lee Jones mentiones this in his book, which has been my guide for most of this process. Your point about the odds for making the boat actually going up after the turn (i.e. 3 more outs - of course!!) made me smile - didn't really think about it in this way before. Wonder what else I'm 'not really thinking about'?? /forums/images/icons/smile.gif

See my reply to your other post for more details

http://www.twoplustwo.com/forums/showthreaded.php?Cat=&Board=begin&Number=212450&pa ge=0&view=expanded&sb=5&o=14&vc=1

[Fitz]

Cold streaks do happen, and they aren't much fun when they hit. One thing you must always remember is that often a cold streak is a combination of things. During my current bad run, I've taken some ugly beats; I've had some had some cold streaks where I won 2 or 3% of my hands over a 4 or 5 hour session; I've also had a couple of battles with tilt which I'm sure has cost me some bets, and I'm sure there are leaks in my game which have been highlighted by my bad run. Losing at this game is never all one thing. Yes, you can have one or two bad sessions where all the planets line up agaist you, but as players, we can never just chalk it up to bad luck. We have to keep analyzing our game and looking for leaks. That is hard to do for those of us who have been playing a long time. It is virtually impossible for new players.

Hang in there, and keep at it. Keep records so you can see exactly what is happening with your game. Keep posting, and you will improve. When you hit your first big winning streak, you can keep the memory of the tough times in the back of your mind to keep you grounded. Thinking we are the smartest poker player who has ever lived! A topic we will address after your first big winning streak, when you think the game is just too easy... lol

Good luck,

[Louie Landale]

Don't post the hand summaries, they are too hard to follow. Summarize them manually: "I called, MP called, button raised, BB called, we called, 4 took the flop" is a LOT easier to read then your first 20 lines below.

Anyway... "Chances of winning" is your total outs divided by the unseen cards, such as your quoted "5/47" figure, or "10.1%". This is not a useful number. Rather calculate your "odds" which is the total bad cards divided by the total good cards, in this case (47-5)/5 or 42/5 or "8.4:1 against improving". This lose-to-win ratio compares directly to the pot-size-to-bet-size ratio to determine if you should call (presuming you always lose if you miss and always win if you hit: but this presumption is almost NEVER a good one).

Raw pot-odds calculation. Lets say with one card to go you have a flush draw and you can see the opponent's made straight (that is, you win if you make the flush and lose if you don't). You have 9 outs out of 44 unseen cards, so your odds are 44-9/9=35/9=3.9:1 against. If it costs one bet, you should call if the pot is bigger than 3.9 bets.

There are lots of adjustments to these calculations. The odds comparisons presumes your "chances of winning" which MUST NOT be confused with your "chances of improving". In your example, it could very well be the case that your pair of Jacks MAY win the showdown unimproved (such as if a T or K doesn't come, and neither of the others has a Q), and it also may be the case that you may lose even if you improve (someone already has a set of Qs and you are drawing dead.

Another adjustment applies to the flop when there are more betting rounds. The chances of improving go up since you have more than one card to go, but also you total-cost goes up since you have more bets to call (the turn bet); and also the chances of getting re-drawn go up (you snag a J on the turn, and lose when a Q comes on the end).

Unless you are drawing to the nuts (such as the flush draw vrs straight example), exact pot-odds calculations are pratically impossible, and it requires subjective criteria (such as what are your chances a pair of Jacks is actually the best hand right now, and what are the chances that AcesAndJacks will win) and experience (if you raise, what's the chances one of the limpers will fold his weak pair of Queens).

Usually, your "chances to improve" are LESS than your "chances to win", at least during those times where you are actually trying to calculate your odds. Be advised, however, that any real chance to show down a winner unimproved (even 10% chance) will USUALLY tip the balance between folding and calling.

Lee Jones is a reasonable book to read, but don't study it and don't use it for reference: it has far too many holes in it.

- Louie

[strategem]

Hi Louie

Wow, great response

First, gotcha re: the format of hand postings - I have checked out the correct format in some other posts. Will post like this in the future.

I have never had anyone make the distinction between 'chances of winning' and chances of improving', and the crucial difference between them - thanks for that. I will go over your post and make sure I understand it.

FYI... you may have read that I blew out my $100 account at the PP /50/1.00 tables after something like 70 hours of play, going up a down a lot, then running into a bad streak.

I went to Ultimate and decided to take a slightly different approach. One thing I did was leave any table that seemed really tight or where it was clear that there were really good players seated. I started with a $50 stake and have run it up to $85 at the .25/50 tables. Another thing is, I am playing different starting cards than those strictly mentioned in Jones. This is not just for you, Louie, but for any of those who were kind enough to help me earlier and who might be reading this.

Anyway, I think I learned something in the week I took off! I have come back with a different attitude and a different approach and so far it is working ok. The table selection thing is really important to me, it seems. I am starting to be able to judge the 'texture' of the table and I remain seatedd only when things look favourable to me. Once again, thanks for your detailed info - I have printed it off and will have it beside me when I play. Nikku