bet/fold vs check/call on the river

[Piers]

I always though Bet Fold was a possable improvemnt on Bet Call.

[MyTurn2Raise]

[ QUOTE ]
Isn’t there 6.5 BB in the pot on the river? I’m assuming a 70/5/0.5 is a loose passive non-value seeking donator? Could you explain these three PT stats everyone refers to and their importance?

[/ QUOTE ]

70 is VPIP% (Voluntarily put money in the pot) ...It's the percentage of time the player puts money in to see the flop when not a blind or posting

5 is PFR% (Pre-Flop raise percentage)..percentage of hands the player raises before the flop

0.5 is aggression factor (AF) ....It's a ratio of the number of bets or raises the player makes compared to calls. (Bet+Raise+Reraised)/(Called)

[imported_Jim C]

Here it is, as described by W. Deranged:

Clarkmeister's Theorem: When playing a heads-up pot out-of-position, always lead the river if the river makes four-to-a-flush.

The idea--

If you have a big flush, it's obviously a value bet.

If you don't have a big flush:

1. Villain may fold a better, non-flush hand or a baby flush fearing a big flush.

2. Villain may call with a worse hand thinking you're full of it (it's one of those weird situations where there are both value-bet and bluff-bet reasons to bet).

3. You can easily fold to a raise.

4. You don't allow yourself to get bluffed out of pots when you do have the best hand (particularly as many will automatically bet the scare card if you check).

I (Jim) would add that this assumes a reasonable, thinking opponent. I've seen Party Poker fish raise and re-raise here with only a 5 or 6 of trump.

Anyhow, I think this is an excellent use of bet/fold.

Jim

[Judi]

[ QUOTE ]
Here it is, as described by W. Deranged:

Clarkmeister's Theorem: When playing a heads-up pot out-of-position, always lead the river if the river makes four-to-a-flush.

The idea--

If you have a big flush, it's obviously a value bet.

If you don't have a big flush:

1. Villain may fold a better, non-flush hand or a baby flush fearing a big flush.

[/ QUOTE ]

What kind of person would fold for 1 bet in a 10BB pot, when they know you are capable of this move?

[ QUOTE ]
2. Villain may call with a worse hand thinking you're full of it (it's one of those weird situations where there are both value-bet and bluff-bet reasons to bet).

[/ QUOTE ]

So, he'll fold a better hand or small flush, but call with a worse hand......

[ QUOTE ]
3. You can easily fold to a raise.

[/ QUOTE ]

You can, as you're bluffing with what you think is the worse hand. Me, I'm ck/calling in case villain bet, thinking I'll muck.

[ QUOTE ]
4. You don't allow yourself to get bluffed out of pots when you do have the best hand (particularly as many will automatically bet the scare card if you check).

[/ QUOTE ]

Neither do I.


[ QUOTE ]
I (Jim) would add that this assumes a reasonable, thinking opponent. I've seen Party Poker fish raise and re-raise here with only a 5 or 6 of trump.

[/ QUOTE ]

Okay. So, we need to find ourselves in this position, against a player, who will lay down a better hand, thinking we have the flush, or a player who will call with a worse hand, or a "fish" who will raise with small trump cards, when we have none. Or....should we just ck/fold to the "fish" if we know he wouldn't bet without the trump? Or, should we bet into him in case he doesn't have trump but will call with a worse hand, thinking we are full of it, or would lay down a better hand cause he doesn't think we are full of it?
And......we know all this while playing how many tables at once?



[ QUOTE ]
Anyhow, I think this is an excellent use of bet/fold.

Jim

[/ QUOTE ]

I can see that you do.

[jba]

Judi:

the point of the clarkmeister is that you are usually behind, so adjust your mind to accept that fact that we are going to lose money on the river bets (whether check/calling or bet/calling or bet/folding). There are four cards to a flush out there, and our opponent is still hanging out, and in these type situations you tend to lose more than you win. Our goal is to lose the least when we're behind and win the most when we are ahead.

here's a simple example:

hero is BB with QJ
some folds, villain button raises, hero calls.

flop [4sb] QhJs2h
hero checks, villain bets, hero raises, villain calls.

turn [4bb] 7h
hero bets, villain calls

river [6bb] 5h


now let's say we have a decent read on villain's play, and we have a fairly accurate range that he's got:

a) a strong flush - A or K high
b) a weak flush
c) some made hand worse than yours: AJ, KJ, QT, KQ, 77, etc.
d) some POS that he isn't going to spend one more chip on

if you check/call, you are usually going to end up losing 1 bet to groups a and b, and winning nothing.

if you bet/call, you are usually going to end up losing 2 bets to group a (he'll raise you), 1 bet to group b, and you win 1 bet from group c.

group d is always irrelevant.

so if we throw some numbers in and say his hand range consists of 10% group A, 70% group b, and 20% group c, our EV looks like:

EV(check) = .1*-1 + .7*-1= -8
EV(bet) = .1*.2 + .7*-1 + .2*+1 = -0.48

as you can see betting is clearly best, given the particulars. even though you are probably going to lose (4:1 underdog in fact), it is correct to bet.

some things to look for in an opponent:
- he isn't so aggressive that he will try to steal the pot with his trash hands when you check to him on the river. In this case you may win enough from group d using the check/call line to make this line favorable.
- he tends to play a bit scared on scary boards without the nuts. If your opponent will raise you with a J high flush on the river, his group A will be significantly larger.

[Judi]

jba,

I like the way you presented your opinion, however, your analysis is flawed by the incorrect math, i.e.:

[ QUOTE ]
EV(check) = .1*-1 + .7*-1= -8

[/ QUOTE ]

should be -.8

[ QUOTE ]
EV(bet) = .1*.2 + .7*-1 + .2*+1 = -0.48

[/ QUOTE ]

should be: .1*-2 + .7*-1 + .2*1 = -2.5
if we fold to the raise: .1*-1 +.7*-1 +.2*1 = -1.5

So, anyway you handle it after you bet, you lose more than I. In addition, you have distributed 100% to groups AB&C, leaving out group D.
I assume you are calling the raise all of the time in order to not ignore the possibility of your opponent bluffing with a ck/raise with group C hands. I would give that a potential 3-5% of the time.

[jba]

[ QUOTE ]
jba,

I like the way you presented your opinion, however, your analysis is flawed by the incorrect math, i.e.:

[ QUOTE ]
EV(check) = .1*-1 + .7*-1= -8

[/ QUOTE ]

should be -.8


[/ QUOTE ]

got me there

[ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
EV(bet) = .1*.2 + .7*-1 + .2*+1 = -0.48

[/ QUOTE ]

should be: .1*-2 + .7*-1 + .2*1 = -2.5
if we fold to the raise: .1*-1 +.7*-1 +.2*1 = -1.5


[/ QUOTE ]

again I boned it, but then you did too, it's actually:

.1*-2 + .7*-1 + .2*1 = -.7

[ QUOTE ]

So, anyway you handle it after you bet, you lose more than I.

[/ QUOTE ]

look again

[ QUOTE ]
In addition, you have distributed 100% to groups AB&C, leaving out group D.


[/ QUOTE ]

on purpose though:

[ QUOTE ]
group d is always irrelevant.

[/ QUOTE ]

this is true because I stipulated that in these circumstances, he is not going to call with trash nor bluff with it (and in my things to look for in an opponent to take this line against, I tried to make that more clear).
any hand that villain holds on a river that is: worse than yours, will never call your bet, *and* never bluffs will never be a factor in your river decision

[ QUOTE ]

I assume you are calling the raise all of the time in order to not ignore the possibility of your opponent bluffing with a ck/raise with group C hands. I would give that a potential 3-5% of the time.

[/ QUOTE ]

the decision to call the raise or not is opponent and board dependant. I left it out to hopefully show you that even if you always pay off the raise, betting can be profitable in the right circumstances.

[Judi]

[ QUOTE ]
again I boned it, but then you did too, it's actually:

.1*-2 + .7*-1 + .2*1 = -.7

[/ QUOTE ]

Correct. For some reason I gave .1*-2 as -2.00

So, it's -.8 lost if I ck/call & -.7 if I bet/call.
We are splitting hairs for 1/10 of a big bet, of which we did not take into account other important variables, such as: Opponents with hands in Group C, attempting on occassion to steal with a raise and those with Group B raising.
The above variables not taken into account, are variables working in our favor when we bet and not check as I proposed.
The only variable that works in our favor when we check, is when opponents with hands in group D bet after we check.

Now, since we took into account someone calling to see the river with low board pair & an ace, who will not call the river, we have to account for what percentage of the time that is. If we say it is 8% of the time and distribute that between groups B&C we get:

GroupA: 10% GroupB: 66% GroupC: 16% Group D: 8%

I will say that players with Group A hands will raise 100% of the time; Group B hands 8% of the time; Group C hands 5% of the time; Group D hands 2% of the time.

[.1*-2] + [-1*(.66*.92)+ -2*(.66*.08)] + [1*(.16*.95)+ 2*(.16*.05) + 1*(.08*.02) =
-.2 + [-1*.61] + [-2*.05] + [1*.15] + [2*.01] + negligble =

-.74 compared to -.8 when you check/call.

So, I agree that betting and then calling a raise is the optimum play, (It is only the optimum play when your opponent is at least going to call 100% of the time with hands in Group C) as even if you lose a neglible amount, you gain bets by people thinking you're a loose bettor on the river.

However, please note: My original disagreement was with Jim C., who stated: "You can easily fold to a raise."

jba, I thank you for your input, as it has taught me something valuable, however, how would the math turn out if players with hands in Group C folded 10% of the time?

[Judi]

jba,

Now that I think about.......bet/calling has more -variables unknown than ck/calling, as we don't know if players in Group C might try & steal it with a bet if we ck, plus some of those players in Group B, just might not have that much faith in their medium flush card to bet if you check.

So, I think your play is a gamble based upon too many variables.

[jba]

[ QUOTE ]
We are splitting hairs for 1/10 of a big bet

[/ QUOTE ]

welcome to limit holdem. this is what the game is all about.

how big of a mistake is it to call for a gutshot getting 9.5:1 effective odds? less than .1bb I would guess.