Obsession with value bets (Warning: Long)
 

This is cut and pasted from my blog. I don't know if it will be helpful to anyone here, and I would certainly appreciate feedback on how to make it better, but one of my pet peeves lately has been how poorly people value bet. I have about 10-12 people I regularly review hand histories with as well, and IMO the most common problem I see with their play is poor betting. Anyways, here it is:

Let's face it, we as poker players are obsessed with the 'value bet'. Several of the most popular poker texts discuss value betting in detail, and during the WSOP and even some WPT broadcasts lately there has been a lot of talk of 'great value bets' going on. I really think us online poker players, as a community, tend to go a little overboard with the idea of what a value bet is and how to apply it properly though.

I'm going to take everyone back to Poker 101 here as it applies to betting. If you hold the absolute nuts in your hand, you would want to bet the absolute most into the pot that your opponent would call, and not one penny less. Conversely, if you're on a stone cold bluff you would want to be the absolute least you have to in order for your opponent to fold, and not one penny more. Now, obviously the amount of times a poker player has the absolute nuts or is on a stone cold bluff doesn't happen all that often, but we can apply this concept broadly by saying that there are times our hands are strong enough we WANT action, and there are times our hands are weak enough (either as a bluff, or just a generally weak hand) that we'd prefer not to have action.

Now, let's say that we call this point where the maximum amount your opponent will call is 'X'. Like anything else in poker, we will never be able to know exactly what X is for any given hand. But given that poker is a game of incomplete information, we can try and fill in some of the gaps with the information we know about the player and his actions so far in the hand. Is he a loose caller? Has he represented a strong or a weak hand? Is he on tilt? Plus many other questions that may impact how the player will respond to your bet. The problem I see many players (particularly online players) making at the tables though, is they take the value bet concept too far. They assume that in order to make a value bet, they must make a bet they feel will always be called, and thus they bet far too little in an attempt to extract more out of the pot.

A common example I see of this is when someone finally makes their drawing hand (let's say a flush or a straight in this case) and it's checked to them. They have position and obviously checking is not an option since giving a free showdown when you finally hit our hand would be a poker catastrophe. They get so afraid of not getting paid off with their great hand that they make a super small bet into a large pot so they'll be called. This is awful!! We all know (or should know) that great poker players separate themselves by getting maximum value out of their winning hands and losing as little as possible on their losing hands. Clearly if you're betting some absurd amount like 600 chips into a 4000 pot when you make your hand on the river, you're leaving money on the table. I mean if you bet 1200 into that same pot, and your opponent will call half as often, you make just as much money in the long run, and certainly if he's willing to call 600 in that pot he'd be willing to call 1200 at least half as much. Take that out further, and he might call 2500 1/3 of the time!

If you do the math (and I'll spare you that here), if your opponent will call 600 every time, 1200 half the time, and 2500 1/3 of the time, 2500 is by FAR the superior bet, as over the course of many hands it will bring you the most profit. I don't know about you, but I play poker for profit. You cannot be so afraid of your opponent folding that you refuse to extract maximum value out of a hand.

This doesn't apply just to the river either. You want to be getting maximum value (either by getting a weaker hand to call or a stronger hand to fold) on every street when you're doing the betting. If you take the easy way out and bet small with your good hands and big with your bluffs, I promise you you'll be watching from the rail much sooner than you expect. Think about your bet sizes and play strong poker, and I promise you your bottom line will thank you.

-Rizen

Re: Obsession with value bets (Warning: Long)
 

excellent post. I find myself pushing on the river quite often with a made hand and getting called by worse hands a very surprising amount of the time. Sometimes they're just bad players, other times good players will think I wouldn't bet that much if I had the hand I do and will call with a worse hand.

Re: Obsession with value bets (Warning: Long)
 

Nice post Rizen. I have huge problems with river value betting with a more marginal, but still made, hand (e.g. TPGK, bottom 2, etc.). Sometimes I can be hesitant to pull the trigger at all and just want a cheap showdown, when I know I should extract more on the end. I see monsters, etc. and think villain will make a huge cr on the end that I can't call (although they rarely do). River betting is definitely not my strong suit (not that I have one).

Re: Obsession with value bets (Warning: Long)
 

[ QUOTE ]
If you hold the absolute nuts in your hand, you would want to bet the absolute most into the pot that your opponent would possibly call, and not one penny less.

[/ QUOTE ]

this isn't really right. according to this, if there is a 50% chance villain will call 900 chips and a 99% chance he'll call 800, then i should bet 900 because my opponent could "possibly call."

your EV on a bet of size x is:

EV(bet x) = x * probability villain calls

(ignores c/r's). you want to find the value of x that maximizes EV. very different from betting the maximum that has some chance of being called.

Re: Obsession with value bets (Warning: Long)
 

Thank you Rizen. This post really hit home. I tend to miss way too many value bets, and something just clicked when i read this. Excellent post.

PREPARE TO MAKE THE DECEMBER DIGEST.

- Jason

Re: Obsession with value bets (Warning: Long)
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If you hold the absolute nuts in your hand, you would want to bet the absolute most into the pot that your opponent would possibly call, and not one penny less.

[/ QUOTE ]

this isn't really right. according to this, if there is a 50% chance villain will call 900 chips and a 99% chance he'll call 800, then i should bet 900 because my opponent could "possibly call."

your EV on a bet of size x is:

EV(bet x) = x * probability villain calls

(ignores c/r's). you want to find the value of x that maximizes EV. very different from betting the maximum that has some chance of being called.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks for the proofread, I need to remove the word possibly. The point of that whole paragraph there is to say 'if I had a telepathy, and knew with certainty that he would call exactly 900 chips but would fold to 901 (100% of the time) then I should be 900'. I stated the principle wrong and it can be confusing, thanks for pointing that out.

-Rizen

Re: Obsession with value bets (Warning: Long)
 

[ QUOTE ]
Clearly if you're betting some absurd amount like 600 chips into a 4000 pot when you make your hand on the river, you're leaving money on the table.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is not necessarily true. Everything is situational dependent. Sometimes it is so obvious by the betting patterns that someone is working on a flush. Nobody is fooled, nobody is trying to fool anybody. Then the flush card hits. Sometimes a min-bet is all you're going to get paid off--a bet twice the size could actually cause some pain, and may get folded way more often than a min-bet. That is why it is usually a mistake to consider implied odds when going for a flush.

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. Whoops. How am I going to get anything for this--as Harrington says, I've sucked all the oxygen out of the room.

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. The river comes without the flush card. BB checks again. I bet 100. He calls with King high, and I get an extra 100 chips. That was all I was going to get. If I raised to 200, I think he folds probably 75-80% of the time, given his range. The only way he was going to call a substantial bet was if he had the other Ace, and given that three were already accounted for and he was in the BB, that seemed a very remote possibility (especially since he had checked the hand 3 times).

Now let's say that UTG limped or the button called and the exact same thing happened. I might make a weak bet on the flop, hoping that he had the other ace (hoping and praying that he has AK or AJ). Or I might wait until the turn.

The main difficulty I have with value bets, I think, is being afraid to bet the river when it's checked to me for fear of being trapped. But when I do decide to make a value bet on the river, I'm not looking to get paid off 100% of the time. I make a bet based on the cards that I think he has and what I think he would be willing to pay. Sometimes that is an absurdly small number, and on occasion it's more than the pot.

I think your article is good, but I don't think you need to make blanket statements like "betting 600 into a 4000 pot is absurd."

Re: Obsession with value bets (Warning: Long)
 

I will try to sumarize your post in 1 sentance:
"You should try to maximize profits on your hands."

All of this strikes me as painfully obvious. When someone bets 600 into a 4000 pot, it is because they feel that this bet will maximize their profits. Most of the time they bet small amounts because they think the opponent has nothing and thats all he will pay off with A high or whatever. I doubt that reading this will help them as much as making better reads etc.

Re: Obsession with value bets (Warning: Long)
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Clearly if you're betting some absurd amount like 600 chips into a 4000 pot when you make your hand on the river, you're leaving money on the table.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is not necessarily true. Everything is situational dependent. Sometimes it is so obvious by the betting patterns that someone is working on a flush. Nobody is fooled, nobody is trying to fool anybody. Then the flush card hits. Sometimes a min-bet is all you're going to get paid off--a bet twice the size could actually cause some pain, and may get folded way more often than a min-bet. That is why it is usually a mistake to consider implied odds when going for a flush.

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. Whoops. How am I going to get anything for this--as Harrington says, I've sucked all the oxygen out of the room.

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. The river comes without the flush card. BB checks again. I bet 100. He calls with King high, and I get an extra 100 chips. That was all I was going to get. If I raised to 200, I think he folds probably 75-80% of the time, given his range. The only way he was going to call a substantial bet was if he had the other Ace, and given that three were already accounted for and he was in the BB, that seemed a very remote possibility (especially since he had checked the hand 3 times).

Now let's say that UTG limped or the button called and the exact same thing happened. I might make a weak bet on the flop, hoping that he had the other ace (hoping and praying that he has AK or AJ). Or I might wait until the turn.

The main difficulty I have with value bets, I think, is being afraid to bet the river when it's checked to me for fear of being trapped. But when I do decide to make a value bet on the river, I'm not looking to get paid off 100% of the time. I make a bet based on the cards that I think he has and what I think he would be willing to pay. Sometimes that is an absurdly small number, and on occasion it's more than the pot.

I think your article is good, but I don't think you need to make blanket statements like "betting 600 into a 4000 pot is absurd."

[/ QUOTE ]

The situation you describe is slow-playing/trapping for the most part, the only part of the situation where you actually value bet is the river. While it is certain that with his particular holding (in this case King high) you weren't going to get more, you could certainly get more on average from his RANGE of holdings in this particular case.

I won't hijack the thread to address your hand in particular, but I will say that I do agree with one point you have. Blanket statements don't belong in poker, so using 'absurd' may have been strong. I also would agree that there are times (however rare) when betting 600 into a 4000 pot may be correct. However, I sincerely believe that underbetting for value is seriously overused by poker players, and they try and pass off their plays in the name of 'value betting', and that was the pet peeve that I was trying to address with this post. I also believe that if you're a learning or beginning player, if you never bet 600 into a 4000 pot (or some similar underbetting) that you'd probably be better off in the long run.

-Rizen

Re: Obsession with value bets (Warning: Long)
 

[ QUOTE ]
I will try to sumarize your post in 1 sentance:
"You should try to maximize profits on your hands."

All of this strikes me as painfully obvious. When someone bets 600 into a 4000 pot, it is because they feel that this bet will maximize their profits. Most of the time they bet small amounts because they think the opponent has nothing and thats all he will pay off with A high or whatever. I doubt that reading this will help them as much as making better reads etc.

[/ QUOTE ]

The post was meant mainly for entertainment and self reflection purposes, not teaching purposes. I don't pretend to be a teacher or instructor. I am neither, and I don't think I would be good at either. I could sum up the entire game of poker to say:

"You should strive to make money"

and that doesn't mean we should throw out all poker texts does it?

I appreciate your feedback and I'm sorry you got nothing out of the post, but please don't over-generalize things.

-Rizen

Re: Obsession with value bets (Warning: Long)
 

I have recently been playing a lot of heads up SNG's. This type of play really exposes value betting for me, and my weakness at it. Just like you said, I was betting too small, ensuring I would get called, then I would pat myself on the back and say, good job for getting paid off. you just turned a 2000 pot into a 2600 pot by betting that 300 on the river. Way To Go!

And then i started losing. I find that overbetting, rather than underbetting is a better strategy, bc not only will they call a certain % of the time, but overagressive value betting affects your opponent in the inverse way. He will be afraid of the river raise (which is, I agree, almost never used), and some opponents shut down value betting altogether. They only bet when they have the nuts or are on a bluff, which is strange to me. Its like, when they dont know with 100% certainty whether or not they want to be called (I could just as easily be talking about me at certain times) they simply dont bet. This is amazing, its the beginning of weak tight play, and something that happens much more often live than online (unless you can convince somebody that the site is rigged and that they will get sucked out on, which actually works on occasion). Anyway, theres my .02

Re: Obsession with value bets (Warning: Long)
 

Thanks for posting this. I also believe that play on the river does not get enough attention either in books or on this forum. Here are my thoughts on the matter, I would love for others to comment, and extend:

Either you are in-position on the river, or out-of-position. In either case, you have either a marginal hand (might be best, e.g. TPGK), a devalued hand (it was almost certainly best until the river but a scare card has come), a busted hand (you were going for a draw but it missed and you are almost certainly behind), a near-nut hand, or a nut hand. I will give my evaluation and questions for each of these 2x5 situations.

1. Out-of-position:

a. bust hand ---- what I do here is, if a scare card has hit the river or something else has occurred that I reasonably think that my opponent would fold more than one time in three (this comes from HOH) I make a half-pot bet. I fold to any raise, of course.

b. marginal hand ---- I would either check-call-a-reasonable-bet here or make a blocking bet of about 1/4 the pot if it does not pot-commit me (folding to a raise).

c. devalued hand --- I play this the same way I do a marginal hand, but I am more likely to make a blocking bet-fold-to-reraise, rather than a check-call. (Is this a leak?)

d. near-nut hand. These hands are vulnerable because I may be raised on the river even when my opponent has a weaker hand than me. Since opponents with the nuts will generally bet smallish when I check, I lose a lot less if I check here. So I generally check-call-any-bet here. These are very difficult for me to play.

e. Nut hand --- my main question here is, are my opponents likely to have hit a near-nut hand here? Examples: if I have QT on a board with a 9,8,7 and a J comes giving any ten a second-best straight, or if I have the nut flush and I suspect my opponents may have been drawing to a smaller flush, or I have a full house and they may have hit a flush. In these cases, I will make at least a pot-sized bet, often more, including all-in because I know they will probably call me down. If I don't suspect that they have hit a hand, I will either check-call if I think they might bet if I check but fold if I bet, or make a 1/4 - 1/2 pot bet, whatever I think they will call.


2. In-position, and it is checked to me:

a. bust hand --- again, I will bet about 1/2 pot if I think they might fold.

b. devalued hand --- here, I usually check, but I suspect this may be a leak, should I perhaps bet 1/4 pot here? It always scares me because of the possibility they have hit their draw and slow-played it.

c. marginal hand - If I have been taking the lead and they just keep calling, I will check here.

d. near-nut hand - Here I will usually bet 1/4 to 1/2 pot, whatever I think they might call.

e. nut hand --- same thing applies as above.

3. In-position, bet to me:

a. bust hand --- fold, I don't think I ever bluff raise here (is this a leak?)

b. devalued hand --- I will generally call a reasonable bet, unless I am pretty sure they have hit their draw.

c. marginal hand, and d. near-nut hand --- I will call a reasonable bet, unless --- they have been check-calling the whole time and now suddenly lead out with a sizable bet. This smacks too much of a big hand, possibly the nuts.

e. nut hand --- I will of course, raise them, substantially, none of these "double-their-bet" raises for me that the fish seem to love when they have the nuts.

Thoughts, comments, extrapolations?

Re: Obsession with value bets (Warning: Long)
 

[ QUOTE ]
I will try to sumarize your post in 1 sentance:
"You should try to maximize profits on your hands."

All of this strikes me as painfully obvious. When someone bets 600 into a 4000 pot, it is because they feel that this bet will maximize their profits. Most of the time they bet small amounts because they think the opponent has nothing and thats all he will pay off with A high or whatever. I doubt that reading this will help them as much as making better reads etc.

[/ QUOTE ]

Roman: the perpetual rain on our proverbial 2+2 parade.

Re: Obsession with value bets (Warning: Long)
 

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.

Re: Obsession with value bets (Warning: Long)
 

[ 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.

Re: Obsession with value bets (Warning: Long)
 

[ QUOTE ]
I have recently been playing a lot of heads up SNG's. This type of play really exposes value betting for me, and my weakness at it. Just like you said, I was betting too small, ensuring I would get called, then I would pat myself on the back and say, good job for getting paid off. you just turned a 2000 pot into a 2600 pot by betting that 300 on the river. Way To Go!


[/ QUOTE ]

This is correct, but it does remind me of some very poor play I've seen in the $50 HU games I've been doing lately. A lot of people are too worried about getting paid off with their big hands, and so will slow-play until the river and suddenly overbet the pot when I've shown no interest in at all up to this point. For instance, blinds at 15-30, there's a min bet and call on the flop, then turn is checked through, so 120 in pot total, and suddenly Villain is betting 250. In a heads up situation, you have to be able to build a pot before the river if you want to get a substantial river bet paid off.

Re: Obsession with value bets (Warning: Long)
 

[ QUOTE ]
When someone bets 600 into a 4000 pot, it is because they feel that this bet will maximize their profits. Most of the time they bet small amounts because they think the opponent has nothing and thats all he will pay off with A high or whatever. I doubt that reading this will help them as much as making better reads etc.

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course they feel this bet will maximize their profits. Rizen's point, which I think is one many people do need to hear, is that these players may have a good read on their opponent but dramatically underestimate the amount he will pay off on the river. If Villain is folding TPTK to a 3/4 pot bet on the river any time a flush card hits, then Hero probably needs to be bluffing the river a lot more often.

Re: Obsession with value bets (Warning: Long)
 

My point was that your post is so general that it cant help anybody. You say im over-generalizing [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]

I think you have it reversed.

Re: Obsession with value bets (Warning: Long)
 

Nice post. Don't really have much to say except that I have to work on betting more--it's rather uncomfortable in the lower stakes because of how easy they are to play betting small.

Re: Obsession with value bets (Warning: Long)
 

blog URL ?

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