|
|
#31
09-27-2005, 12:38 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Valuebetting queen high
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] I was just looking at every possible player action. Most (80% as a rough guess) of the times they will fold when we are winning. [/ QUOTE ] But what's the point? It's not important that Villians fold a lot. What's important is that when you are called, you need to be ahead a lot more than you are going to be ahead on this board. Krishan [/ QUOTE ] Agreed. I definitely wasn't advocating a value bet. Can you explain the 55% as opposed to anything over 50%? [/ QUOTE ] 50% is breakeven AKA not profitable. Also, if you can't fold to a check-raise, you need a higher %. Krishan 
|
|
#32
09-27-2005, 12:43 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Valuebetting queen high
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] I was just looking at every possible player action. Most (80% as a rough guess) of the times they will fold when we are winning. [/ QUOTE ] But what's the point? It's not important that Villians fold a lot. What's important is that when you are called, you need to be ahead a lot more than you are going to be ahead on this board. Krishan [/ QUOTE ] Agreed. I definitely wasn't advocating a value bet. Can you explain the 55% as opposed to anything over 50%? [/ QUOTE ] 50% is breakeven AKA not profitable. Also, if you can't fold to a check-raise, you need a higher %. Krishan [/ QUOTE ] If you can't fold to a c/r, doesn't it need to be a lot closer to 66%? Rob
|
|
#33
09-27-2005, 12:47 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Valuebetting queen high
[ QUOTE ]
If you can't fold to a c/r, doesn't it need to be a lot closer to 66%? Rob [/ QUOTE ] Sorta, the number bandied about is usually 55% or 60%. It of course depends on the frequency of calling vrs checkraising/bluff raising. Krishan
|
|
#34
09-27-2005, 12:48 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Valuebetting queen high
i dont know where you guys are getting 55%. it seems like such an arbitrary number that has no mathematical foundation whatsoever. could you elaborate on this? i think i need to have more than 55% equity on my bet when i am called because the risk of a checkraise is so great. however, when i am checkraised i think i will be ahead quite a bit of the time, but not as often as behind. i have never seen a tag triple check a full house like this. theres no way to mathematically calculate how often i need to be ahead when called on the river unless you assign estimated values to every variable in the hand. however, those estimations will be so altered that any mathematical estimations you arrive at are pretty much meaningless.
|
|
#35
09-27-2005, 12:55 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Valuebetting queen high
[ QUOTE ]
i dont know where you guys are getting 55%. it seems like such an arbitrary number that has no mathematical foundation whatsoever. could you elaborate on this? i think i need to have more than 55% equity on my bet when i am called because the risk of a checkraise is so great. however, when i am checkraised i think i will be ahead quite a bit of the time, but not as often as behind. i have never seen a tag triple check a full house like this. theres no way to mathematically calculate how often i need to be ahead when called on the river unless you assign estimated values to every variable in the hand. however, those estimations will be so altered that any mathematical estimations you arrive at are pretty much meaningless. [/ QUOTE ] The 55% is straight out of TOP, and makes sense mathematically. In order for a bet to be of 'value', you need to win more often than you lose when called . 50% would be breakeven, 55% would be profitable even if you get checkraised now and again. If you're going to get checkraised more often than normal, you need to increase it. When you get checkraised here, you think you'll be ahead "quite a bit of the time." Can you quantify that? Do you mean the majority of the time? I find that hard to believe.
|
|
#36
09-27-2005, 01:44 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Valuebetting queen high
[ QUOTE ]
however, when i am checkraised i think i will be ahead quite a bit of the time, but not as often as behind. [/ QUOTE ] also i pretty much explained that i cant quantify these variables. i might have been unclear though so i understand. thanks for pointing out what the reference is to. ive heard 55% thrown around before but i still firm in my opinion this number really doesnt make any sense.
|
|
#37
09-27-2005, 01:53 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Valuebetting queen high
Oops, didn't read your post too closely. My bad.
You're right, it doesn't make perfect mathematical sense. You would need to quantify c/r-ing frequency, how often you plan on calling the c/r, how often you win if you call, etc etc. As a general guideline against most opponents (not a whole lot c/r the river with very strong hands), I think 55% (or, in layman's terms, "slightly more often than not) is a pretty solid mark.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
