Pros and Cons of Betting/Raising to "Gain Information"

I agree with people's responses that raising just to gain info is a bad move. Gaining information should be more a of bonus to your betting/raising.

I may bet/raise with the intention of folding to a raise/3-bet. My intention for the raise wasn't to gain information though, it was to either protect my hand or to get someone to fold a better hand or a drawing hand.

[4_2_it]

Okay, I think most of you are on to my game here. I think betting for information is lame and raising for information is chip spewing. Of course, if I state this up front, I get no replies other than nh.

One of the common errors seems to be re-rasing pre-flop with JJ for the sole purpose of seeing if villain will push (indicating AA or KK) instead of calling and playing for set value.

Every bet should be made in context with each situation. For instance, you flop a set. Don't min bet to acquire information. Make a normal bet, either someone has a hand or they don't.

Meleader's thought on deep stack play (200+ bb) is interesting. I am not a deep stack expert so maybe BobboFitos or someone else who plays in deep stack games can make a more educated comment on that.

[Leptyne]

Fortunately this issue has been published in our magazine by our own ML4L.

Check here Link

Also check out this thread in MHSNL Thread

[Mercman572]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I swear I was about to start a thread just like this. I think people waaaay overuse this phrase. Betting for information sounds a lot more like letting villain outplay you 100% of the time.

[/ QUOTE ]

This made me laugh. Its usually more like "betting to give information".

[/ QUOTE ]

Sometimes, though not solely for information, playing our hand in a way that we believe should be very obvious to villain allows us to make better decisions. The thing is, raising accomplishes so many things simultaneously we can't pin it down most times to any specific reason.
For example, you are preflop raisor with AK, two see a flop and it comes kqx, two spades. you are last to act, first opponent opens for 1/2 pot, the person inbetween calls. You may or may not be best, and calling accomplishes nothing accept let a player draw for cheap. You put in a pot sized raise not only to cut the opponents odds, but also to "gain information." Should the initial bettor reraise and the middle player call for instance, you can now be pretty certain your hand is no good, but you bet when you had no reason to believe you weren't and have gained not only from this information, but for the times you are best here and gain monetary value.

[4_2_it]

[ QUOTE ]
Fortunately this issue has been published in our magazine by our own ML4L.

Check here Link

Also check out this thread in MHSNL Thread

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks for the link. This is good stuff.

[Allinlife]

read theory of poker

[Mercman572]

[ QUOTE ]

Meleader's thought on deep stack play (200+ bb) is interesting. I am not a deep stack expert so maybe BobboFitos or someone else who plays in deep stack games can make a more educated comment on that.

[/ QUOTE ]

bets have a much greater threat since all that is behind them, so theoretically a bet should carry much more weight deep stacked. I think that this is more importantly used in an exploitive manner to force more folds rather than to "gain information." When you lead out and get called or raised with a very deep stack the most information you are likely to get is "crap i could be in trouble, and it would cost alot." When you raise deep stack it isn't to find out where you're at, but to use this concept to force folds.

Just my interpretation but I'd be interested to hear what others think. Basically I feel the information gained from raising in any event is an added product of raising, and shouldn't be the real motivator

[4_2_it]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Meleader's thought on deep stack play (200+ bb) is interesting. I am not a deep stack expert so maybe BobboFitos or someone else who plays in deep stack games can make a more educated comment on that.

[/ QUOTE ]

bets have a much greater threat since all that is behind them, so theoretically a bet should carry much more weight deep stacked. I think that this is more importantly used in an exploitive manner to force more folds rather than to "gain information." When you lead out and get called or raised with a very deep stack the most information you are likely to get is "crap i could be in trouble, and it would cost alot." When you raise deep stack it isn't to find out where you're at, but to use this concept to force folds.

Just my interpretation but I'd be interested to hear what others think. Basically I feel the information gained from raising in any event is an added product of raising, and shouldn't be the real motivator

[/ QUOTE ]

Look at the link above and Coach Bobbo's comments in it. Your question has been answered there.

[Mercman572]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Meleader's thought on deep stack play (200+ bb) is interesting. I am not a deep stack expert so maybe BobboFitos or someone else who plays in deep stack games can make a more educated comment on that.

[/ QUOTE ]

bets have a much greater threat since all that is behind them, so theoretically a bet should carry much more weight deep stacked. I think that this is more importantly used in an exploitive manner to force more folds rather than to "gain information." When you lead out and get called or raised with a very deep stack the most information you are likely to get is "crap i could be in trouble, and it would cost alot." When you raise deep stack it isn't to find out where you're at, but to use this concept to force folds.

Just my interpretation but I'd be interested to hear what others think. Basically I feel the information gained from raising in any event is an added product of raising, and shouldn't be the real motivator

[/ QUOTE ]

Look at the link above and Coach Bobbo's comments in it. Your question has been answered there.

[/ QUOTE ]

yes I'm pretty happy I've come along enough to think along those lines. looked at mike's response to bobbos and he basically said what I did. Still have to read bobbos' response tho