Genera Concept Behind My "What's Wrong...." Question.

[garyc8]

In fact, when the steal chance is exactly 20% there is a very small positive EV based on the chance that you are called by a better hand that gets counterfeited by the turn and river.
However, David's point is well taken. I whiffed on this one.

[gergery]

[ QUOTE ]
Hi Louie,

[ QUOTE ]
If your hand CAN win a show-down without bluffing, then you need to be able to get away with the bluff MORE often with such a hand before the bluff is the better play. Bluff more with 32 than with QJ.

[/ QUOTE ]

I disagree with what I think you're saying.

A semi-bluff doesn't need as much steal equity as a pure bluff. The semi-bluff also has some amount of made equity (it might be the best hand), and some amount of draw equity (it could draw to the best hand), to augment the steal equity. The pure bluff relies solely on steal equity; it has no made or draw equity, because it can only win if the opponents fold.

On the other hand ... a semi-bluff early in a pot does have some negative equity that a pure bluff does not. That is, when you semi-bluff early in the pot, get a call, and miss your draw, now you may end up bluffing off more chips if you continue to play the hand aggressively. With a pure bluff, it's usually a "one-and-done" bet. If you're called on the bluff, you get away from the hand without wondering "what might have been...."

In some types of games (especially big bet), against some kinds of opponents (very tough ones), the negative equity of a semi-bluff might overshadow the made and draw equity, and in that case I agree with what you're saying. But in most situations, the semi-bluff has more ways to win, and thus the bluff doesn't have to work quite as often for you to have a positive equity play.

Cris

[/ QUOTE ]

I think this misses David's point, and misses what Louie was trying to say. The whole point is NOT whether one hand has more value than another.

The point is that the value of betting on a given hand should be weighted against the alternatives available to it (ie. checking).

Louie's whole point was that the EV difference between betting a worthless hand and checking it is relatively large. By contrast, the EV difference between betting and checking a decent drawing hand can be relatively small.

This is mainly due to the lost EV the drawing hand suffers when its reraised and can't call.

[AJo Go All In]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm not sure if you're being sarcastic here.

David's "An Interesting NL Question" on the WPT forum was an example where the equity:risk ratio played a significant role in the correct answer. While raising may have had a marginally greater equity than calling (depending on one's assumptions), it put your entire stack at risk for only a tiny increase (if any at all) in equity. Equity:risk ratio is a useful concept when you have two or more alternative plays, one of which forces you to risk significantly more than the other(s), but yields only a marginal increase in equity. In some cases, it may be better to give up the minute additional equity of the more risky alternative.

That having been said, such situations are comparatively rare. I agree that, in the vast majority of cases, the play with the greatest equity (regardless of equity:risk ratio) will be the better play.

Cris

[/ QUOTE ]

the other situation was from a TOURNAMENT. so we have to worry about things like STACK PRESERVATION.

good thing that's completely irrelevant to this example.

[Louie Landale]

I was refering to bluffing on the end, not semi-bluffing along the way. The principle that you tend to lose residual show-down equity when you bluff applies very well to the river: if you have QJ (no pair) in one river and 32 in another, you are better off betting the 32 than the QJ, on the river.

Yes, semi-bluffing early doesn't need as much chances as a pure bluff; and semi-bluffing with QJ is usually better than with 32: if you get QJ (no pair) in one flop and 32 on another, you are better off betting the QJ than the 32, on the flop.

Riving betting is a lot different than earlier rounds.

- Louie

[donny5k]

Also, in that example the correct answer was making a smooth call because of EV not because of avoiding risk. By avoiding the reraise all-in, you are avoiding a situation with less positive EV than calling.