Value bet this river? - Page 2

ecooke · #11 11-12-2004, 01:57 AM

Saving Private Ryan is a good movie and your numbers look fine.

[ QUOTE ]
If you check, he'll only bet with better hands, because loose-passive players don't bluff rivers like this very often.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't have the data handy so I really can't say. If he always checks with a worse hand (say 50% overall) and always bets the other 50% of the time, we need him to be betting with a worse hand 25% of the time for this to be +EV. I'll take this line against a Bet/Fold giving me -.2BB. Seem completely unreasonable?

Entity · #12 11-12-2004, 02:02 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Saving Private Ryan is a good movie and your numbers look fine.

[ QUOTE ]
If you check, he'll only bet with better hands, because loose-passive players don't bluff rivers like this very often.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't have the data handy so I really can't say. If he always checks with a worse hand (say 50% overall) and always bets the other 50% of the time, we need him to be betting with a worse hand 25% of the time for this to be +EV. I'll take this line against a Bet/Fold giving me -.2BB. Seem completely unreasonable?

[/ QUOTE ]
No, because 50% of the time, you lose 1BB (Net -.5BB). 25% of the time, you gain 1BB. +.25BB. Net: -.25BB, which is still worse than the -.2BB of bet/folding. He's got to bet a worse hand 30% of the time here, which a loose/passive (this read is IMPORTANT) won't.

Rob

cold_cash · #13 11-12-2004, 02:25 AM

If all of this numbers/calculations stuff goes completely over my head, does it mean I'm destined to suck at poker? Seriously.

Does it make any difference if I know that our hero should bet the river?

P.S. - I'm glad I never had to fight in a war.

ecooke · #14 11-12-2004, 02:31 AM

[ QUOTE ]
because 50% of the time, you lose 1BB (Net -.5BB). 25% of the time, you gain 1BB. +.25BB. Net: -.25BB, which is still worse than the -.2BB of bet/folding. He's got to bet a worse hand 30% of the time here, which a loose/passive (this read is IMPORTANT) won't.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wait, no.
50% I lose 0BB (both check)
25% I win 1BB (villain bets, hero wins)
25% I lose 1BB (villain bets, villain wins)
yeah?

ecooke · #15 11-12-2004, 02:34 AM

[ QUOTE ]
does it mean I'm destined to suck at poker?

[/ QUOTE ]
No, it means you will play more by feel than by math. It also means women will like you more than they like me.

[ QUOTE ]
Does it make any difference if I know that our hero should bet the river?

[/ QUOTE ]
Yes, it does. It's all about EV.

cold_cash · #16 11-12-2004, 02:50 AM

[ QUOTE ]
No, it means you will play more by feel than by math.

[/ QUOTE ]

I understand a little of the math when it comes to outs and odds and all that crap. I'm always amazed at you "math guys", though. (I mean that as a compliment.) I wish I had a mind like that.

[ QUOTE ]
It also means women will like you more than they like me.

[/ QUOTE ]

Dude, you have no idea. I get more box than UPS.

[ QUOTE ]
Yes, it does. It's all about EV.

[/ QUOTE ]

I hope you're right, since I don't understand all the technical mumbo-jumbo.

Richard Berg · #17 11-12-2004, 03:07 AM

I've never seen math in the Small Stakes forum go about the level of 6th-grade arithmetic, so I'll bet if you put your mind to it you'd grok it without much trouble. The question is whether retraining your left brain is +EV when you could spend that time working on your Shania.

Entity · #18 11-12-2004, 11:49 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
because 50% of the time, you lose 1BB (Net -.5BB). 25% of the time, you gain 1BB. +.25BB. Net: -.25BB, which is still worse than the -.2BB of bet/folding. He's got to bet a worse hand 30% of the time here, which a loose/passive (this read is IMPORTANT) won't.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wait, no.
50% I lose 0BB (both check)
25% I win 1BB (villain bets, hero wins)
25% I lose 1BB (villain bets, villain wins)
yeah?

[/ QUOTE ]

I think I get what you're trying to say, but there's something off. Let's just start with how often we think he has a better hand (the straight is the most likely better hand). Your math is saying that he has the straight only 25% of the time, which goes against the EV calcs I was doing. For us to have comparable numbers, we've got to say he has the straight a comparable amount of the time.

My simple EV numbers show that as a loose-passive player, he will need to bet > 30% of the time for you check/calling to show value. All I'm saying is that a loose-passive player won't bluff with this kind of frequency. They probably won't bet this river with a hand you can beat over 5% of the time.

If you want to give me numbers for how often he'll A) have the straight, B) bet/raise the straight if you bet, and C) call when you bet, I'll go ahead and do the numbers for bet/fold vs. check/call, but you have to remember that he is loose-passive. This is VERY important to remember.

Rob

ecooke · #19 11-12-2004, 11:58 AM

Our big disconnect is the "Loose Passive bluffs with a worse hand" factor. I also understand what you are saying but I'm going to continue to try and keep it very simple since the only calculator I own is between my ears:

50% of the time hero loses 0 BB (say 25% hero wins, 25% villain wins)
25% of the time hero loses 1 BB (Villain bets with a better hand - straight, two-pair, whatever)
25% of the time hero wins 1 BB (Villain bets with a lesser hand - smaller pair, high card, or bluff)

If this final 25% is our sticking point, then I can agree that it may be too high for a loose passive opponent. But in general, the line still looks mathematically sound vs. the bet/fold option.
Have we reached a compromise?

Entity · #20 11-12-2004, 12:03 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Our big disconnect is the "Loose Passive bluffs with a worse hand" factor. I also understand what you are saying but I'm going to continue to try and keep it very simple since the only calculator I own is between my ears:

50% of the time hero loses 0 BB (say 25% hero wins, 25% villain wins)
25% of the time hero loses 1 BB (Villain bets with a better hand - straight, two-pair, whatever)
25% of the time hero wins 1 BB (Villain bets with a lesser hand - smaller pair, high card, or bluff)

If this final 25% is our sticking point, then I can agree that it may be too high for a loose passive opponent. But in general, the line still looks mathematically sound vs. the bet/fold option.
Have we reached a compromise?

[/ QUOTE ]
No, because in your math here, villain only has the straight (or a better hand) 25% of the time.

In that event, here's the EV of a bet/fold (assuming he calls 50% of the time on the river, and raises 100% of the time with a straight).

25% of the time, you lose 1BB: -.25BB.
75% of the time, you bet, and he calls 50% of that time: +.375BB.

Net total EV: +.125BB, which is much better than your check/calling line, which is 0BB EV.

Rob

PS - I came up with the "calls the river 50% of the time" figure by looking at loose-passive players I've played over 150 hands with, and seeing how often they fold to a river bet. Most are at 40%, but I'm offering the benefit of the doubt to make my EV line seem less +EV than it is, so I'm saying they fold 50% of the time rather than 40%.