Semi Bluff and Value Bets

[cbloom]

One thing that I think many people fail at in poker is misunderstanding value bets. When your chance of winning the pot is more than 1/(# of likely callers), your bet is a +EV bet for value. (of course it's a lot more complicated than that, because you really have to simulate an approximate EV for all your actions and your opponents, etc.). So, betting a flush draw (or similar so-called "semi-bluffs") is usually not a "bluff" - it's a value bet. I see people fail to understand this in short-handed all the time : playing short handed, if you have Ace High, it's often a wise value bet. Many people think of this as a "bluff". Now, of course you can win if he folds - but you can *always* win if he folds. Any bet can be thought of as partially a bluff. But in both cases, if he folds you may actually be losing money. Now, obviously if you're on the flop two-handed and you bet a flush, that's not a +EV bet for value, it's only +EV if you add the term for the fact that he may fold better hands, which is just P_fold * pot. So, in this picture we consider betting in a two-term EV way :

EV of bet/raise = (EV of value showdown) + (EV he might fold)

Now, a pure bluff has all its value in the second term, and a pure value bet has all its value in the first (in fact, any folds hurt the EV of a pure value bet, such as betting the nuts). In between, there's a whole vast continuum of bets that are between pure bluffs and value bets. Certainly betting a flush draw into multiple opponents is usually more towards the "value bet" side of the spectrum. Any time you bet a hand on the river that you're not sure about (like A high), it's somewhere in the middle, in the "semi-bluff" area.

I don't like the Malmuth/Sklansky discussion of this topic, because they just emphasize that a "semi-bluff" is a bet that can "win two ways". Well, any bet can win two ways.

With a value bet, you don't want opponents to fold. With a pure bluff, you want them to fold. I would define a "pure semi bluff" as a bet where it doesn't matter if they fold or not - you have the same EV either way. This is any hand that is right on the border of either being a bluff or a value bet.

[Dynasty]

There's a lot wrong with this post. I'll point what may be the biggest flaw in your thinking.

[ QUOTE ]
When your chance of winning the pot is more than 1/(# of likely callers), your bet is a +EV bet for value...So, betting a flush draw (or similar so-called "semi-bluffs") is usually not a "bluff" - it's a value bet...With a value bet, you don't want opponents to fold

[/ QUOTE ]

When you bet a flush draw, especially one with overcards, on the flop into several opponents, you'd show a bigger profit if many hands folded, especially middle pair and bottom pair hands. You don't want to be called. You definitely make money if they call. But, you make more money if they fold despite the fact that you have more than 1/(# of likely callers) equity in the pot.

[Copernicus]

I also dont think the concepts are misunderstood, certainly not among players serious enough to have done any reading/thinking about the game. Virtually any hold 'em strategy discussion recognizes folding equity and how that is lost if you are the caller instead of the bettor.

The S&M discussion of semi-bluffs addresses situations well beyond where there may be sufficient odds to make a call if bet into.

Leading with a drawing hand that has +EV ("betting on the come") is certainly not a hidden "secret of the pros".

[Louie Landale]

Nit-Pick: your ODDS are #callers-to-one. Your "chances" are 1/#callers-plus-1: if you get one call your chances need to be better than 1/2.

Other nit-pick (incomplete by Dynasty): Most "value bets" do better when you are NOT called: if there is 5 bets in the pot and you bet for value on the river figuring to win 60% when called, its a good value bet even though you prefer NOT to be called; since winning the pot 100% is better than winning the pot plus one more bet 60%.

Never-the-less, you got this one right. Most of these bets are value bets not semi-bluffs.

But on to a related topic. Lets say the opponent NEVER calls on the flop with less than top pair but he plays EVERY hand before the flop. You have A5 flop AT2. If you get called you are in serious dodo since you can only "beat" A4 and A3 and are going to tie them most of the time.

Never-the-less you should bet out on the flop. (Anyone who disagrees with that should stop reading now...) This doesn't seem to be a "value bet" since you are a big dog if called; it also doesn't seem to be a "semi-bluff" since you are such a big favorite to start with; and you have little chance of outdrawing him if called.

Perhaps "Value bet" should be reserved for riving betting. The rest of the time we could call it "Bet-em-when-you've-got-em betting". Or "Favorite Betting".

What I'm suggesting is this: with more cards to come you should bet if you figure to win the showdown more often than 1/#total players currently in the pot. This may not apply too well ON the flop (when most players will have absolutely nothing) but should figure well on the turn when everyone called a flop bet, since presumably everyone has something, even if not much.

- Louie

[shemp]

The case where you bet the river with a 60% chance to
win if called with a legitimate hope that a better one will
fold strikes me as rare, but interesting. I usually
feel that I'm resigned to have a better hand call, but I'm
afraid a worse one won't... or hasn't bet. To the extent
that I want a better hand to fold, it is a bluff -- ie,
maybe the two concepts interact.

Relatedly...

I think of "value bet" as being street sensitive context
wise. In addition to the other discussed cases I'd add: On
the river when first to act, I may bet a hand that I
suspect is a *big* dog when called a) if I intend to call
and b) my opponent will check inferior hands but bet
all better hands and, c) only raise better hands. Otherwise
a bet is always going in when I'm a loser, but never when
I'm a winner. That's a big list of requirements,
and I see people (routinely) over apply the same
reasoning, but the situation does come up.

On the turn and flop I think of value bet (or raise) as
referring to the equity you have on the money going into
to the pot -- where you put in 2 bets, say, but your
equity figures to be > (what is in the pot + 2 bets).

A common thread has to do with the equity on the
money going in, but there are different twists pre
and post river related to whether or not a bet is
likely going into the pot, and different twists
related to combinations of bluff (all streets post-flop)
and semi-bluff (post-flop but pre-river) -- though
semi-bluff already factors in bluff to some degree.

[cbloom]

This does depend a bit on the size of the pot, right? If the pot is tiny and the bet is big, you'd rather have them call. I suppose in most any realistic structure the pot is going to be big enough and your edge is small enough that you'd rather have them fold.

[cbloom]

Thanks for the corrections;

This flop bet is a little complicated because it seems more like you're taking advantage of FTOP - he folds too much, and by betting you are encouraging him to make a mistake, and when he makes a mistake you make money.

[Dynasty]

[ QUOTE ]
I suppose in most any realistic structure the pot is going to be big enough and your edge is small enough that you'd rather have them fold.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes. I was talking about a "normal" sized pot.

[Louie Landale]

Yes, betting the 2nd best hand hoping the best hand folds and the 3rd best calls is pretty rare (it comes up when the weak-tight player acts before the live guy who is SURE to call); but that's not what I was saying. I was saying that even if you figure you'll win 60% when called (and is thus a good value bet) you do BETTER if you are not called.

In your first related paragraph: I think you've given a terrible example. You say the opponent will check inferior hands but bet all better hands. If so, you should intend to FOLD not call. The situation where you SHOULD bet on the river even if a dog when called is this: your hand IS worth a call if you check-and-call (he'll bluff some of the time), but you figure he'll call with more inferior hands (if you bet) then he'd bluff with (if you check). Example: there are 11 bets and the opponnent will bluff one time in 10. Check-and-call is better than check-and-fold. Notice you are gaining with the call but still losing .9bb on the call itself. But the opponent will call 20% with inferior hands and will never bluff-raise. Thus you lose .8bb on the bet for value. Both situations give you the same show-down equity so your "share" of the pot is the same. Betting is more profitable than checking-and-calling, even though its unprofitable in the pure bet-for-value sense.

Caro spelled this out somewhere much better than I did.

- Louie

[shemp]

You make excellent points and you straightened me
out. I was reaching for a border case that has been
ably (coherently) described elsewhere.