Better than 1 time in 3

[Schizo]

I've seen people say that in order to bet or raise the river you must be good more than 1 time in 3 to make up for the times you are raised.

Math-wise, how exactly do they get this number?

I think you are referring to being good 2 out of 3 times.

You are laying 2-1 on the river bet.

If it is checked to you for instance, and you are heads up and last to act, you can bet or check. If you bet you are trying to win 1 bet. You risk getting raised in doing so, and losing 2 bets when you could have checked for no risk. So in this simple example, you would have to be good over 2 out of 3 times to show a profit.

Please note, the above example assumes that you get raised every single time you are beat, which is not the case. Other examples I have read about your hand being good use a % of 55.

i find this complicated but interesting... i think the river is huge leak for me.

obviously if the cards were face up, there would be no problems with anyone, no bets would be called.

so then it gets down to how good your reads and your opponents reads are.. i think there's lots of risk against good players, but bad players (maybe me) are overly optimistic with top or second pair.

very interesting though as last time i played B&M, the river was a complete disaster (fed some huge pots and never seemed to get paid on my nut flushes).... i think check-raise is good on river with the right players but you definitely need a very aggressive player "to make the bet for you"

[AaronBrown]

I think Howling may be right about how someone came up with this number, but the logic is not good.

First of all, it only covers heads up, last to act. Second, it does not factor in three important probabilities: (a) you bet and he folds, (b) you bet and he calls and (c) you bet, he raises and you fold. All three of these add to your expected value and make you more willing to bet.

Even this only works with a fixed limit structure. If it is pot limit or no limit, the raise could be more or less than the original bet.

In most cases, you will bet heads up on the river if you think you have better than a 50% chance of winning if you get called or raised. You may also bet as a bluff, with very small chance of winning. There are many other factors that influence this decision, but your unconditional chance of winning the pot is not a major one and 1 chance in 3 or 2 in 3 is no magic number.

[mosdef]

[ QUOTE ]
(a) you bet and he folds, (b) you bet and he calls and (c) you bet, he raises and you fold. All three of these add to your expected value and make you more willing to bet.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hi Aaron. Have you been on vacation or something? It seems like ages since you've posted.

(b) only adds to your expected value when you have the best hand. I don't see how (c) ever adds to your expected value. Under (c), if you have a worse hand you have lost one more bet than you would have by checking and if you have a better hand then you just forfeited the whole pot plus one bet.

So I don't understand your statement that (a), (b), and (c) can add to your expected value.

[AaronBrown]

[ QUOTE ]
(b) only adds to your expected value when you have the best hand. I don't see how (c) ever adds to your expected value. Under (c), if you have a worse hand you have lost one more bet than you would have by checking and if you have a better hand then you just forfeited the whole pot plus one bet.

[/ QUOTE ]

I've been busy, I wish I had been on vacation.

I meant add to your expected value compared to the original calculation. You're right that (b) only adds to your expectation when you have the better hand. (c) adds to your expectation when you have the worse hand, you save one bet compared to calling the raise.

Of course, you could misplay these options and fold with the better hand while calling the raise with the worse one. But the option to raise, call or fold should increase your expectation if you use it properly.