Obsession with value bets (Warning: Long)

I have recently been playing a lot of heads up SNG's. This type of play really exposes value betting for me, and my weakness at it. Just like you said, I was betting too small, ensuring I would get called, then I would pat myself on the back and say, good job for getting paid off. you just turned a 2000 pot into a 2600 pot by betting that 300 on the river. Way To Go!

And then i started losing. I find that overbetting, rather than underbetting is a better strategy, bc not only will they call a certain % of the time, but overagressive value betting affects your opponent in the inverse way. He will be afraid of the river raise (which is, I agree, almost never used), and some opponents shut down value betting altogether. They only bet when they have the nuts or are on a bluff, which is strange to me. Its like, when they dont know with 100% certainty whether or not they want to be called (I could just as easily be talking about me at certain times) they simply dont bet. This is amazing, its the beginning of weak tight play, and something that happens much more often live than online (unless you can convince somebody that the site is rigged and that they will get sucked out on, which actually works on occasion). Anyway, theres my .02

[allenciox]

Thanks for posting this. I also believe that play on the river does not get enough attention either in books or on this forum. Here are my thoughts on the matter, I would love for others to comment, and extend:

Either you are in-position on the river, or out-of-position. In either case, you have either a marginal hand (might be best, e.g. TPGK), a devalued hand (it was almost certainly best until the river but a scare card has come), a busted hand (you were going for a draw but it missed and you are almost certainly behind), a near-nut hand, or a nut hand. I will give my evaluation and questions for each of these 2x5 situations.

1. Out-of-position:

a. bust hand ---- what I do here is, if a scare card has hit the river or something else has occurred that I reasonably think that my opponent would fold more than one time in three (this comes from HOH) I make a half-pot bet. I fold to any raise, of course.

b. marginal hand ---- I would either check-call-a-reasonable-bet here or make a blocking bet of about 1/4 the pot if it does not pot-commit me (folding to a raise).

c. devalued hand --- I play this the same way I do a marginal hand, but I am more likely to make a blocking bet-fold-to-reraise, rather than a check-call. (Is this a leak?)

d. near-nut hand. These hands are vulnerable because I may be raised on the river even when my opponent has a weaker hand than me. Since opponents with the nuts will generally bet smallish when I check, I lose a lot less if I check here. So I generally check-call-any-bet here. These are very difficult for me to play.

e. Nut hand --- my main question here is, are my opponents likely to have hit a near-nut hand here? Examples: if I have QT on a board with a 9,8,7 and a J comes giving any ten a second-best straight, or if I have the nut flush and I suspect my opponents may have been drawing to a smaller flush, or I have a full house and they may have hit a flush. In these cases, I will make at least a pot-sized bet, often more, including all-in because I know they will probably call me down. If I don't suspect that they have hit a hand, I will either check-call if I think they might bet if I check but fold if I bet, or make a 1/4 - 1/2 pot bet, whatever I think they will call.


2. In-position, and it is checked to me:

a. bust hand --- again, I will bet about 1/2 pot if I think they might fold.

b. devalued hand --- here, I usually check, but I suspect this may be a leak, should I perhaps bet 1/4 pot here? It always scares me because of the possibility they have hit their draw and slow-played it.

c. marginal hand - If I have been taking the lead and they just keep calling, I will check here.

d. near-nut hand - Here I will usually bet 1/4 to 1/2 pot, whatever I think they might call.

e. nut hand --- same thing applies as above.

3. In-position, bet to me:

a. bust hand --- fold, I don't think I ever bluff raise here (is this a leak?)

b. devalued hand --- I will generally call a reasonable bet, unless I am pretty sure they have hit their draw.

c. marginal hand, and d. near-nut hand --- I will call a reasonable bet, unless --- they have been check-calling the whole time and now suddenly lead out with a sizable bet. This smacks too much of a big hand, possibly the nuts.

e. nut hand --- I will of course, raise them, substantially, none of these "double-their-bet" raises for me that the fish seem to love when they have the nuts.

Thoughts, comments, extrapolations?

[mlagoo]

[ QUOTE ]
I will try to sumarize your post in 1 sentance:
"You should try to maximize profits on your hands."

All of this strikes me as painfully obvious. When someone bets 600 into a 4000 pot, it is because they feel that this bet will maximize their profits. Most of the time they bet small amounts because they think the opponent has nothing and thats all he will pay off with A high or whatever. I doubt that reading this will help them as much as making better reads etc.

[/ QUOTE ]

Roman: the perpetual rain on our proverbial 2+2 parade.

[Exitonly]

another point, which i'm not sure makes sense, but it did when i decided to respond.

Even if over the long term betting 600 into that pot was slightly MORE profitable, i think it'd be better to bet 2500. Because Those 600 chips are going to have a small impact on your tournament, but 2500 chips would have a decent impact.

The difference between 10,000 and 10,600 is nearly nonexistant. but 10,000 and 12,500 is big.

Maybe not big enough. but eh, it sounded good in my head.

[Pat Southern]

[ QUOTE ]

Today I had a situation where the BB was 100, and I was dealt AQ in EP. I raise to 300. Only the BB calls. Then the flop comes--AAQ. There were 2 flush cards on the board. So I checked the flop and checked the turn, hoping that the third flush card would hit and possibly make his hand.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is flawed thinking, if he has a flush draw he's still going to call certain sized bets. Just because you got called down by K high this one time, doesnt mean betting a total of 1 BB with a flopped full house is correct. And although you think blanket statements should't be used, I will dare to go out on a limb and say that getting 1 BB in the pot post flop with the flopped nuts is never correct.

[ QUOTE ]
I have recently been playing a lot of heads up SNG's. This type of play really exposes value betting for me, and my weakness at it. Just like you said, I was betting too small, ensuring I would get called, then I would pat myself on the back and say, good job for getting paid off. you just turned a 2000 pot into a 2600 pot by betting that 300 on the river. Way To Go!


[/ QUOTE ]

This is correct, but it does remind me of some very poor play I've seen in the $50 HU games I've been doing lately. A lot of people are too worried about getting paid off with their big hands, and so will slow-play until the river and suddenly overbet the pot when I've shown no interest in at all up to this point. For instance, blinds at 15-30, there's a min bet and call on the flop, then turn is checked through, so 120 in pot total, and suddenly Villain is betting 250. In a heads up situation, you have to be able to build a pot before the river if you want to get a substantial river bet paid off.

[ QUOTE ]
When someone bets 600 into a 4000 pot, it is because they feel that this bet will maximize their profits. Most of the time they bet small amounts because they think the opponent has nothing and thats all he will pay off with A high or whatever. I doubt that reading this will help them as much as making better reads etc.

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course they feel this bet will maximize their profits. Rizen's point, which I think is one many people do need to hear, is that these players may have a good read on their opponent but dramatically underestimate the amount he will pay off on the river. If Villain is folding TPTK to a 3/4 pot bet on the river any time a flush card hits, then Hero probably needs to be bluffing the river a lot more often.

[Roman]

My point was that your post is so general that it cant help anybody. You say im over-generalizing [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]

I think you have it reversed.

Nice post. Don't really have much to say except that I have to work on betting more--it's rather uncomfortable in the lower stakes because of how easy they are to play betting small.

blog URL ?