Re: Obsession with value bets (Warning: Long)
 

[ QUOTE ]
another point, which i'm not sure makes sense, but it did when i decided to respond.

Even if over the long term betting 600 into that pot was slightly MORE profitable, i think it'd be better to bet 2500. Because Those 600 chips are going to have a small impact on your tournament, but 2500 chips would have a decent impact.

The difference between 10,000 and 10,600 is nearly nonexistant. but 10,000 and 12,500 is big.

Maybe not big enough. but eh, it sounded good in my head.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with the principal here. If two plays are similar in EV, I will take the line with the most variance. Basically chosing between winning a good pot 3/5 times or a monster pot 1/5 times. If the expectation is similar, give me the monster.

Re: Obsession with value bets (Warning: Long)
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Today I had a situation where the BB was 100, and I was dealt AQ in EP. I raise to 300. Only the BB calls. Then the flop comes--AAQ. There were 2 flush cards on the board. So I checked the flop and checked the turn, hoping that the third flush card would hit and possibly make his hand.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is flawed thinking, if he has a flush draw he's still going to call certain sized bets. Just because you got called down by K high this one time, doesnt mean betting a total of 1 BB with a flopped full house is correct. And although you think blanket statements should't be used, I will dare to go out on a limb and say that getting 1 BB in the pot post flop with the flopped nuts is never correct.

[/ QUOTE ]

good post. People really play spots like this backwards. Making someone pay to draw (when they are drawing dead, even better), is usally the highest EV line, as well as the most likely way to double when they hit their flush.

Re: Obsession with value bets (Warning: Long)
 

[ QUOTE ]
blog URL ?

[/ QUOTE ]

http://rizenpoker.blogspot.com/

Its pretty new, not a lot of back content

Re: Obsession with value bets (Warning: Long)
 

Rizen-

I like the main idea of your post, but you really oversimplified river play in order to make your point. In other words, what you are saying makes sense if your opponent will *never* raise, but the reality is that many online opponents will check-raise the river with air (or even with medium strength hands) if they sense weakness.

Thus, any discussion of deep-stacked river play cannot be limited to a simple call/fold analysis. (You never give specific stack sizes, but I infer that stacks are rather deep based on the range of bet sizes you provide in your examples.)

Overall, though, you make a good point that getting called some of the time with a large bet is often better than getting called all of the time for a tiny bet.

Later,
Che