betting with outs in position

[wrto4556]

I think i have a lot of problems of knowing when to bet and when to take the free card when i have outs. Maybe it has just become apparent because the games im playing in now have more turn check/raises. So, I gave it some thought and came up with this "theorem" to help me understand it.

Theorem on betting with outs.

When in position, bet the turn if one or more of the following criteria are met.

1) It's a bet with an equity edge.
2) Your hand has showdown value.
3) You're fold equity, number of outs, and the size of the pot combined make betting more appealing than checking.

If none of these criteria are met, take the free card.

side note: in all cases, it has to be unlikely that you will get check/raised.




I think number 3 is vague. I know what i want to say, but i cant say it. I guess i don't have the thoery down yet. Does anyone see any problems with this? Or have something they would like to add?

I would also like to point out that, in creating these guidelines, the person i worked on this with and myself came up with rules for #3. Should they be added?

[cdxx]

do you propose that this is applicable to most games (full-ring, 6max, HU) or just to games you are playing in now? just a question.

another question on #3. i can understand fold equity, but number of outs and size of the pot only seem to apply to multiway hands, is that correct? by betting instead of the free card play, you are lowering your odds (which may still be favorable). so unless you also have pretty large pot equity (most likely in multiway) i think betting may be incorrect. so i would word #3 as "your fold equity or pot equity combined make betting more appealing than checking".

my two cents...

[lehighguy]

In limit you always take the free card. They never fold, ever.

In NL its read dependent. If I think my opponent has a really weak hand I bet.

[Equal]

[ QUOTE ]
In limit you always take the free card. They never fold, ever.

In NL its read dependent. If I think my opponent has a really weak hand I bet.

[/ QUOTE ]

I propose these be rules #4 and #5.

[ZenMusician]

[ QUOTE ]
In limit you always take the free card. They never fold, ever.

[/ QUOTE ]

WRETCHED!!

If you have correct drawing odds, especially drawing to the nuts WHO CARES
if they fold or not? When an opponent calls a bet that is profitable for you,
THEY LOSE! It has nothing whatsoever to do with "if they fold" or even if you win or lose that hand!
This is probably one of the most misunderstood concepts around here...

Reread SSHE

-ZEN

[Catt]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
In limit you always take the free card. They never fold, ever.

[/ QUOTE ]

WRETCHED!!

If you have correct drawing odds, especially drawing to the nuts WHO CARES
if they fold or not? When an opponent calls a bet that is profitable for you,
THEY LOSE! It has nothing whatsoever to do with "if they fold" or even if you win or lose that hand!
This is probably one of the most misunderstood concepts around here...

Reread SSHE

-ZEN

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you're misunderstanding either (1) the situation Hero is hypothesizing, or (2) the conceptual difference between betting and calling a bet.

[Jdanz]

still wrong though, you can get people to fold things taht they should call with.

[Catt]

Maybe I am misintrepreting the OP's post. He is considering whether to bet or check through the turn. I think it is implicit in his post that if he checks he gets a free card. The reason he's considering taking the free card is because there is a significant likelihood that he doesn't have the best hand and fears a C/R - he may have the best hand and he may not, but he certainly believes he has outs to the best hand if he is in fact behind Villain. He would have the odds to call a bet from Villain (with his outs) given the pot size, but Villain has checked the action to him. His working approach to help him determine whether to bet or check rests on how often he has second-best hand and what if any fold equity he has against a better hand or a hand that has correct odds to call the bet when he is ahead, and the likelihood that he is C/R'd and has to put two bets in on the turn. His decision is to bet (hoping for an incorrect fold or an incorrect call, but accepting a correct call from Villain) and risk being C/R'd, or to check through and see the river.

And maybe I misintrepreted ZenMusician's post, too: but having the odds to call (say you have a draw to the nut flush) doesn't mean you bet the turn when checked to. You might if you determined that your fold equity was significant enough, but you're rarely betting a draw on the turn when you believe Villain has a made hand.