Making thin value bets or inducing bluffs

[BigBlind]

I have found myself almost always going for the induced bluff rather than making a thin valuebet at river. I believe I sometimes overdo this. Sometimes I strongly believe my second pair, bottom pair, toppar/weak kicker or even Ace high is the best hand at river but instead of betting it I mostly just check and call and let the player with the busted draw or Ace high bluff his money off.

What considerations do you make before going for the thin valuebet or inducing a bluff.

I understand it always depends and that the optimum is some kind of mix between thin valuebets and inducing bluffs but for the sake of argument, would a player that ALWAYS went for the induced bluff with a semiweak holding make more in the long run compared to a player ALWAYS going for the thin value bet.

[Mr. Graff]

[ QUOTE ]
I have found myself almost always going for the induced bluff rather than making a thin valuebet at river. I believe I sometimes overdo this. Sometimes I strongly believe my second pair, bottom pair, toppar/weak kicker or even Ace high is the best hand at river but instead of betting it I mostly just check and call and let the player with the busted draw or Ace high bluff his money off.

What considerations do you make before going for the thin valuebet or inducing a bluff.

I understand it always depends and that the optimum is some kind of mix between thin valuebets and inducing bluffs but for the sake of argument, would a player that ALWAYS went for the induced bluff with a semiweak holding make more in the long run compared to a player ALWAYS going for the thin value bet.

[/ QUOTE ]
Personally I think this is one of the most difficult and complex situations in Hold'em and one I'm having trouble with as well. I'm inclined to believe that in HU situations the second option is the best a little more often than the first (but taken to an extreme it quickly becomes -EV as they will pick up on it).
Generally though I think this situation almost depends more on the opponent than the cards... Against a calling station be more likely to bet, against a LAG be more likely to check. Against a TAG I'm less sure.

Of course the labels "calling stations" and "LAGs" can be somewhat misleading as these players come in different shapes and forms. I think I sometimes treat a flop/turn calling station the same way on the river even though the particular player has proven several times he only shows up good hands on the river. And vice versa with LAGs.

I'll be interested in hearing what the experts have to say here.

[Rizen]

This is where your player reads come in very handy on knowing if you should value bet here or try and induce a bluff.

The Theory of Poker has an excellent section on this very concept, and while I don't have the text in front of me I will attempt to paraphrase (someone feel free to correct me).

Say you knew there were exactly 100 possible hands in a given river heads-up situation, with 100 being the best possible hand and 1 being the worst. Let's also say you have hand 85. This sounds like a clear value bet, right? Well, depending on the player maybe not.

If you have hand #85, but you KNOW (unlikely, but for the sake of example) that your opponent will only call you with hands 80-100. This would make value betting clearly incorrect, as a vast majority of the time you would be losing an extra bet while ocassionally gaining one more. This doesn't include that he may also raise you with hands 90-100.

Let's also say this same opponent if checked to will bet with hands 90-100, but will also bet with missed hands 1-20. This makes checking to induce a bluff against this player a more profitable play than betting for value on the end, even though you will have the best hand 85% of the time (since you have hand 85). It's not imporant that you have the 85th best hand, in a river situation it is only important what your chances are of having the best hand if you are called or when you are calling.

So, what if we have another player, and again have hand 85. We know he will call with hands 50+ if bet into, but will only bet if checked to with hands 95-100 (a passive river player indeed!). We also know he will only raise if we bet with hands 95-100. Clearly in this situation betting for value is the best option since our opponent will often call with a worse hand than ours.

There is also a third situation. In this situation let's say you have hand #60 out of 100, but your opponent will only call with hands 85-100. If checked to, he will bet hands 1-10 as well as 70-100. As long as the pot is of reasonable size, it is unthinkable not to bet into this pot, as your opponent will lay down 25 hands he beats you with forfeiting the entire pot. Checking may induce a bluff in this situation, bet betting will win you an entire pot you are behind on 25 times out of 100!

While it's rare that we know THIS much about our opponents, the concept is simple. You MUST learn to know your opponents river tendencies to learn how to best play the river. There is no universal answer on how to play it. If your opponent is one won't call you unless you are beat (but won't lay down hands that beat you either), but will ocasionally bluff at the river then checking to induce a bluff becomes the best play. If he will call with many hands worse than yours but will not bet those same hands (checks behind you) then betting for value is the best play. In the case that your opponent is so passive that he will fold hands better than yours to a bet often enough for you to be getting pot odds when he folds the superior hand, then you must bet the river.

Making these reads takes practice and paying attention to your opponents. A lot of it you can also tell by the board. For example, if there are a lot of draws out there that didn't make it on the river then check/calling is correct against a lot of opponents, because they'll fold their missed draws if you bet but they'll bet them as a bluff if you check occasionally.

Sorry I've been long winded. I highly recommend the section on heads up play on the river in The Theory of Poker, as it explains this concept very well.

-Rizen

[Benjamin]

Damn, Rizen, for not having the text in front of you, you sure covered it well. Nice job.

B.

[Mr. Graff]

Excellent stuff, thanks!