Valuebetting queen high

[TStoneMBD]

SB is 17/13/1.4 4k hands. BB is a fish.

Party Poker 15/30 Hold'em (5 handed) pokerhand.org hand converter (http://www.pokerhand.org)

Preflop: Hero is Button with Q/images/graemlins/heart.gif, T/images/graemlins/club.gif.
<font color="#666666">2 folds</font>, <font color="#CC3333">Hero raises</font>, <font color="#CC3333">SB 3-bets</font>, BB calls, Hero calls.

Flop: (9 SB) A/images/graemlins/heart.gif, K/images/graemlins/club.gif, A/images/graemlins/diamond.gif <font color="#0000FF">(3 players)</font>
SB checks, BB checks, Hero checks.

Turn: (4.50 BB) K/images/graemlins/heart.gif <font color="#0000FF">(3 players)</font>
SB checks, BB checks, Hero checks.

River: (4.50 BB) 6/images/graemlins/club.gif <font color="#0000FF">(3 players)</font>
SB checks, BB checks, <font color="#CC3333">Hero bets</font>

[wheelz]

looks easy enough to me

[baronzeus]

how many times are they not check-folding this river? i think you should just check behind and take down the pot.

[wheelz]

but BB is a fish. why not?

[nervous]

This leads me to thinking...

Is it standard to bet K-high on AAx flops?

[baronzeus]

[ QUOTE ]
but BB is a fish. why not?

[/ QUOTE ]


i don't know...isn't that like the scariest board in the world? even the fishiest of fish are going to fold there unless they have Q high....

maybe im just wrong though. as soon as stone showed me this hand i said "eww" and im a bit biased against value betting high-card hands.

[Zoelef]

This is way above my limit, but I want to at leaset provide substantiative input so that when I come across these situations, I'm familiar with them. So there.

Anyway.

PF: Openraising "20" on the Button is expected. You usually fold Tight-Neutral SB and if BB is a fish, you're typically ahead, I suppose. Getting 3-bet sucks here especially since SB is Tight-Neutral so I would guess his 3-bet range is quite narrow, maybe 99+/A-J+/K-Q. Obviously, you call his 3-bet because you're getting the odds to do so.

Flop: Check-through is fine, you're almost never ahead but you still have a gutshot and on rare occasions your Q is pot-splittable due to both the K and lack of a flush draw on board, so I would call a single bet on the flop regardless.

Turn: SB check is really interesting, He probably didn't connect on the board but 3-bet pf so he either isolated with crap or has an underpair. BB could have any two for all I know, if he has any legit agression he bets the turn with a boat, right? Right? Again, I check through as I have 'nothing' and I'd fold if bet into here.

River: Once again, check-throughs are bizarre. I don't like betting here because I expect that MHING. I can see why you throw a bet here -&gt; no one shows agression -&gt; no one has a hand and you have top kicker. It really comes down to whether or not you can make better hands fold or worse hands call. I suppose that BB being a fish implies that he may call with crap-high and that SB may have an underpair. Or, they may both call with QJ/QT/Q9 whatever. I believe it comes down to the classic decision of bet/fold or check-through, and I hate folding on the river, so I check through.

[wheelz]

i'm a bit biased for betting them. but i mean, you do think we've gotta be ahead here, so why not bet? it's not like you really have anything to lose.

[baronzeus]

[ QUOTE ]
i'm a bit biased for betting them. but i mean, you do think we've gotta be ahead here, so why not bet? it's not like you really have anything to lose.

[/ QUOTE ]

yeah i think we're ahead too. i guess betting isn't so bad i just personally am too much of a pussy /images/graemlins/frown.gif

in the 0.01% chance you get raised you fold right?

[wheelz]

heh, well, i somehow misread this and was under the impression the pot was limped preflop... being 3-bet preflop certainly makes betting the river a lot tougher. i still like it though, because i still think you've got to have the best hand here. yeah i'd definitely fold to a raise.

[baronzeus]

[ QUOTE ]
i'm a bit biased for betting them.

[/ QUOTE ]


any good pointers btw? prolly part of the reason my river aggression is pretty low (1.75ish) is because i miss a few value bets in these spots.

[wheelz]

no, not really... they're usually just a spur of the moment type of thing. if end up on the river without a pair, with reason to believe i still have the best hand, against an opponent who i have reason to believe is capable of calling with a worse hand, and i know how to react if he raises, then i'll bet. it doesn't happen too frequently anymore. i will say don't do it if you're not sure what to do if he raises, and if you're doing it out of position just remember that your opponent has to have a worse hand and be willing to call with as well... sometimes people take this too far and bet where they would've been better inducing a bluff. not everyone will make a river call without a pair.

[baronzeus]

[ QUOTE ]
no, not really... they're usually just a spur of the moment type of thing. if end up on the river without a pair, with reason to believe i still have the best hand, against an opponent who i have reason to believe is capable of calling with a worse hand, and i know how to react if he raises, then i'll bet. it doesn't happen too frequently anymore. i will say don't do it if you're not sure what to do if he raises, and if you're doing it out of position just remember that your opponent has to have a worse hand and be willing to call with as well... sometimes people take this too far and bet where they would've been better inducing a bluff. not everyone will make a river call without a pair.

[/ QUOTE ]

this is pretty much all the same things i think about. im gonna go through my last month and find the last time i value bet high card hands and see what situations i did that in

[TStoneMBD]

i dont think i can fold to a raise if the TAG SB is the raiser. it really looks like im just trying to steal the pot because its obvious i would have bet an A or K at this point. he could be restealing with some small PP. i think its more likely that that is the case then him actually checking a boat for 3 straight streets.

[wheelz]

ok, i've just gotten this hand totally wrong... so you raise on the button and the TAG 3-bets preflop. in that case yes i'm calling if he raises. no he's not checking all 3 streets with a boat, and yes obviously he doesn't think you'd check the first two with one either.

i don't know what kind of fish the bb is, but calling a raise from him is pretty read dependent i guess.

[TStoneMBD]

ill post results because they fascinated me.

i bet, SB checkraised and i make the call. he shows some Ax combination for the triple check with a boat. wowz.

[ggbman]

[ QUOTE ]
ill post results because they fascinated me.

i bet, SB checkraised and i make the call. he shows some Ax combination for the triple check with a boat. wowz.

[/ QUOTE ]

Good for him. I would have probably bet there too given the action. Werid line.

This can't be a value bet unless BB is way worse than a fish (I'm thinking South Park's Timmy here), since nobody with less than a Q will call. Check/calling to induce a bluff is a much better play.

[krishanleong]

[ QUOTE ]
This can't be a value bet unless BB is way worse than a fish (I'm thinking South Park's Timmy here), since nobody with less than a Q will call. Check/calling to induce a bluff is a much better play.

[/ QUOTE ]

He has position. I check this river through. If preflop wasn't action packed I'll find a turn bet.

Krishan

[ QUOTE ]
He has position.

[/ QUOTE ]

Right you are. Like you say, still just check it through. How much would it suck to get raised?

[krishanleong]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
He has position.

[/ QUOTE ]

Right you are. Like you say, still just check it through. How much would it suck to get raised?

[/ QUOTE ]

In this hand, it looks like it sucked about 40$. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

Krishan

[kidcolin]

Is this really a 'value' bet? Are you getting called by a worse hand more than half the time? I don't think so. Add in the times you decide to pay off a raise, and this stinks. Especially 3-handed? Man I hate this bet.

[Jeff W]

[ QUOTE ]
Is this really a 'value' bet? Are you getting called by a worse hand more than half the time? I don't think so. Add in the times you decide to pay off a raise, and this stinks. Especially 3-handed? Man I hate this bet.

[/ QUOTE ]

My feelings exactly.

[ QUOTE ]
Is this really a 'value' bet? Are you getting called by a worse hand more than half the time? I don't think so. Add in the times you decide to pay off a raise, and this stinks. Especially 3-handed? Man I hate this bet.

[/ QUOTE ]

You don't need half the time, you just need to get called more times than you're losing. Keep in mind they will both fold around 80% of the time. So for 80%, EV will be neutral on this bet.

[Jeff W]

[ QUOTE ]
You don't need half the time, you just need to get called more times than you're losing.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you can fold to the check-raise, you have to be ahead 1/y times you are called where y is 2 or 3 depending on how many callers you get. y is almost always going to be 2 in this case.

However, sometimes you get checkraise bluffed or the threat of a c/r bluff leads you to call a checkraise from a better hand. Therefore, you need to be ahead more than 50% of the time when called. I don't understand where you got that 80% figure from.

[krishanleong]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Is this really a 'value' bet? Are you getting called by a worse hand more than half the time? I don't think so. Add in the times you decide to pay off a raise, and this stinks. Especially 3-handed? Man I hate this bet.

[/ QUOTE ]

You don't need half the time, you just need to get called more times than you're losing. Keep in mind they will both fold around 80% of the time. So for 80%, EV will be neutral on this bet.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are missing something fundamental. We know 80% of the time it's EV neutral. The remaining 20% of the time, you need to be ahead 55% when CALLED.

Krishan

[ QUOTE ]
Therefore, you need to be ahead more than 50% of the time when called.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is true. We're basically saying the same thing.

I was just looking at every possible player action. Most (80% as a rough guess) of the times they will fold when we are winning.

[krishanleong]

[ QUOTE ]
I was just looking at every possible player action. Most (80% as a rough guess) of the times they will fold when we are winning.

[/ QUOTE ]

But what's the point? It's not important that Villians fold a lot. What's important is that when you are called, you need to be ahead a lot more than you are going to be ahead on this board.

Krishan

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I was just looking at every possible player action. Most (80% as a rough guess) of the times they will fold when we are winning.

[/ QUOTE ]

But what's the point? It's not important that Villians fold a lot. What's important is that when you are called, you need to be ahead a lot more than you are going to be ahead on this board.

Krishan

[/ QUOTE ]

Agreed. I definitely wasn't advocating a value bet.

Can you explain the 55% as opposed to anything over 50%?

[Jeff W]

[ QUOTE ]
Can you explain the 55% as opposed to anything over 50%?

[/ QUOTE ]

You get bluff checkraised sometimes.

[krishanleong]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I was just looking at every possible player action. Most (80% as a rough guess) of the times they will fold when we are winning.

[/ QUOTE ]

But what's the point? It's not important that Villians fold a lot. What's important is that when you are called, you need to be ahead a lot more than you are going to be ahead on this board.

Krishan

[/ QUOTE ]

Agreed. I definitely wasn't advocating a value bet.

Can you explain the 55% as opposed to anything over 50%?

[/ QUOTE ]

50% is breakeven AKA not profitable. Also, if you can't fold to a check-raise, you need a higher %.

Krishan

[Entity]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I was just looking at every possible player action. Most (80% as a rough guess) of the times they will fold when we are winning.

[/ QUOTE ]

But what's the point? It's not important that Villians fold a lot. What's important is that when you are called, you need to be ahead a lot more than you are going to be ahead on this board.

Krishan

[/ QUOTE ]

Agreed. I definitely wasn't advocating a value bet.

Can you explain the 55% as opposed to anything over 50%?

[/ QUOTE ]

50% is breakeven AKA not profitable. Also, if you can't fold to a check-raise, you need a higher %.

Krishan

[/ QUOTE ]

If you can't fold to a c/r, doesn't it need to be a lot closer to 66%?

Rob

[krishanleong]

[ QUOTE ]

If you can't fold to a c/r, doesn't it need to be a lot closer to 66%?

Rob

[/ QUOTE ]

Sorta, the number bandied about is usually 55% or 60%. It of course depends on the frequency of calling vrs checkraising/bluff raising.

Krishan

[TStoneMBD]

i dont know where you guys are getting 55%. it seems like such an arbitrary number that has no mathematical foundation whatsoever. could you elaborate on this? i think i need to have more than 55% equity on my bet when i am called because the risk of a checkraise is so great. however, when i am checkraised i think i will be ahead quite a bit of the time, but not as often as behind. i have never seen a tag triple check a full house like this. theres no way to mathematically calculate how often i need to be ahead when called on the river unless you assign estimated values to every variable in the hand. however, those estimations will be so altered that any mathematical estimations you arrive at are pretty much meaningless.

[kidcolin]

[ QUOTE ]
i dont know where you guys are getting 55%. it seems like such an arbitrary number that has no mathematical foundation whatsoever. could you elaborate on this? i think i need to have more than 55% equity on my bet when i am called because the risk of a checkraise is so great. however, when i am checkraised i think i will be ahead quite a bit of the time, but not as often as behind. i have never seen a tag triple check a full house like this. theres no way to mathematically calculate how often i need to be ahead when called on the river unless you assign estimated values to every variable in the hand. however, those estimations will be so altered that any mathematical estimations you arrive at are pretty much meaningless.

[/ QUOTE ]

The 55% is straight out of TOP, and makes sense mathematically. In order for a bet to be of 'value', you need to win more often than you lose when called . 50% would be breakeven, 55% would be profitable even if you get checkraised now and again. If you're going to get checkraised more often than normal, you need to increase it.

When you get checkraised here, you think you'll be ahead "quite a bit of the time." Can you quantify that? Do you mean the majority of the time? I find that hard to believe.

[TStoneMBD]

[ QUOTE ]
however, when i am checkraised i think i will be ahead quite a bit of the time, but not as often as behind.

[/ QUOTE ]

also i pretty much explained that i cant quantify these variables. i might have been unclear though so i understand. thanks for pointing out what the reference is to. ive heard 55% thrown around before but i still firm in my opinion this number really doesnt make any sense.

[kidcolin]

Oops, didn't read your post too closely. My bad.

You're right, it doesn't make perfect mathematical sense. You would need to quantify c/r-ing frequency, how often you plan on calling the c/r, how often you win if you call, etc etc. As a general guideline against most opponents (not a whole lot c/r the river with very strong hands), I think 55% (or, in layman's terms, "slightly more often than not) is a pretty solid mark.