Sklansky Theory - making someone pay for a draw

[john kane]

right, i have a question.

the way i play both limit and mainly NL, is to make people have the option of calling a bet by which if they hit their outs they would not of been getting implied pot odds by their call as i wont be putting enough later in the pot to make it worth their call. usual implied pot odds theory basically.

however, i read somewhere a person saying that sklanksy states you must make the person pay for his draw.

ive been thinking and dont understand why.

say the pot is $200 at 10-20 limit, on the turn and a guy has a flush draw.

your first to act.

now why, according to sklanksy, if you know he has a flush draw, why must you make him pay for it?

your not offering a bet which means by calling he is making a mistake, and he'l never fold, so he's not making a mistake and you do not gain. the only purpose it serves is surely to increse variance by increasing the stakes on a draw.

by making him pay for his draw, you to are also paying for him to draw (as you have bet on the turn), and if he is correct in calling, then all you are simply do is increasing how much you are betting on him missing his draw, and so simply increasing variance.



the only reasons why i can think id for table image and so your betting patterns are not so readable.

but just a theory thought.

id be very interested in replies

[Greg J]

[ QUOTE ]
your not offering a bet which means by calling he is making a mistake, and he'l never fold, so he's not making a mistake and you do not gain. the only purpose it serves is surely to increse variance by increasing the stakes on a draw.

[/ QUOTE ]
Is it better to give your opponent odds enough to call a bet, or to give him a free card to hit his draw?

This is initially a tricky concept to grasp for the rank beginner, but I know Sklansky discusses it.

VERY OFTEN it is impossible to protect your hand in limit games, but betting is still correct for value. What it boils down to is that you both are making correct decisions: 1) your betting has a positive expectation (you are the favorite), and 2) his call also is +EV (he is betting proper pot odds). It is contingent on pot size.

Study Sklansky a little more in depth. The fundamental theorum is a little deeper and has more implications that you are seeing right now.

Good luck,
Greg

[Simplistic]

laying him 100:1 odds to make his draw is still better than giving him free cards. if he flipped his hand face up and you know he only has 9 outs to win, you want to make him make a mistake in trying to win

[Greg J]

Another point: by not betting you are not giving yr opponent the chance to make a mistake by folding (which is, albeit, highly unlikely).

[2+2 wannabe]

another way to look at it:

if the pot is large, and on the turn villain has a 1/5 chance of making his hand on the river to beat you. you have the option of either betting (charging his draw) or checking (not charging). assume that villain will always call your bet (as he has pot odds to do so).

if you bet, 4 out of 5 hands you will gain an extra turn big bet (as you will win 4/5 times) and 1 out of 5 you will lose one - for an expected value of 60% on your turn bet (you will win 3 total bets out of 5 wagered).

if you check, you gain nothing.

as you can see, betting gains more than not betting.

[TexArcher]

If he has a four flush on the flop there's a 65% chance that he won't hit it, I'm betting every time I've got those odds.

[bicyclekick]

While he's getting correct odds, he's getting less correct odds than if you didn't bet. You're gaining on his call because he's going to hit it less than 1 time in 2 so you're bet is making money.

[FNG]

Don't look at it as making him pay. Look at it as value-betting your huge pot equity edge. You win this pot 65% of the time. It is to your advantage to make it as big as possible. And as long as there is enough money in the pot, he is correct to call. Opponents' mistakes are not the only way you win hands.

[ctv1116]

This is basic, its called pot equity. You are going to win this pot 80% of the time (the exact % is not all that important, you just know its significanly greater than 50%). You can divide the pot into the $200 already in the pot, and the bet you are deciding to throw in. What's your expected value on the $40 (20 from you and 20 from your opponent) that goes in on the turn? You get 80% of it and your opponent gets 20% of it. So the turn bet gets you an expected value of $12.

[john kane]

thanks a lot for sorting my head out. i need to reread a few of his books.

to be honest, im very alarmed i couldnt see why!

i think its just lately when ive been searching for the soft tables i always am observing the players to see what mistakes they are making. and on the occasional table there seems to few mistakes that i start to wonder what the point actually is of playing them (well, in profit terms, there's not i suppose).

but yes, it clearly is the fact that you increasing your expected profit of the hand. my problem has clearly been purely thinking in terms of, as rightly mentioned, other players mistakes are the only means to gain.

so to add another question, in theory it would be best, if the opponent is making correct implied pot odd calls, to bet the maximum amount he is willing to call if you are favourite before the river card.(?).

e.g NL, pot $3,750. opponent has a 1 in 5 of hitting river. you can effectively both see each others cards so that no money will exchange on the river if he has hit or not.

so the optimum bet is $1,249.(?) the pot stands at $5,000, with him having to pay $1,249 (1 in 5 he wins +$5,000, 4 in 5 he has -$1,249, so his EV is $4).

and hence you have maximised the turn bet at even money of a 4 in 5 win.

is the maths and this optimal bet correct?