Authors: Value bet or semi-bluff

Louie Landale · #1 09-30-2003, 01:38 PM

In holdem the opponent calls with EVERY hand before the flop but will only call ON the flop with top pair or better. He never bets. He calls, you check K2 in the bb heads up. The flop is K83...

Now you are clearly a big favorite against his random hand. But notice that he will call with ALL hands better than yours, you do NOT have the best hand when called, and your 3-card out is too paltry to be called a reasonable chance to outdraw him.

This situation doesn't qualify as a "bet for value" nor as a "semi-bluff" nor as a "bluff". Never-the-less you should clearly bet to deny him his free cards.

What's it called? Additional comments? Please?

- Louie

MaxPower · #2 09-30-2003, 02:11 PM

I don't know if there is a term for this. How about, "reverse value bet"? It has positive expectation when it is not called.

Another possibility - "Protection bet"

Even though he will never fold the best hand, can't you still classify this as a sem-bluff because you have some chance to improve to the best hand? I thought a semi-bluff includes the possibility that you might be betting the best hand. For instance, You have AKs, your oponnent has JTo and the flop is 874 rainbow. Wouldn't that be a semi-bluff?

Copernicus · #3 09-30-2003, 02:30 PM

What precludes it from being a "value bet". As Ive used that term it means a bet with less than the nuts that you believe has positive expectation based on the merits of the hand (ie without needing folding equity). It doesnt mean its a sure winner, and in fact many "value bets" (as I have used the term) are destined to lose if they are called. (Although Ive seen value betting used more in the context of the river card than the flop.)

This bet has positive expectation because the only hands he can call with are AA, or K anything, far less than the random number of hands he might have been dealt.

Ray Zee · #4 09-30-2003, 06:19 PM

there is no name for it. its just a bet where you think you have the best hand and want your opponent to fold. and if he calls you dont have the best hand.

but it is not clearly obvious that you should bet. sure you dont want him to get free cards but there are many more senarios to consider.

George Rice · #5 09-30-2003, 08:20 PM

If he only calls with top pair you should bet with anything! There are at most three cards he can have to make top pair, or he can have a pocket pair for a set, or possibly a pat hand. But the chances of that are always less than 1 in 3 so your bet will have positive expectation.

I think it is simply a semi-bluff. You're betting, hoping that your opponent will fold but you can still improve to beat him if he doesn't. In your case, your bet is more bluff than "semi." Perhaps you can call it a semi-BLUFF. [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

On page 74 on the 1992 edition of TOP, David says: [ QUOTE ]
Semi-bluffs can be much more varied and often more complex than simply betting on the come. They can range from almost pure bluffs, when your hand has little chance of catching up if your bet is called, to a bet with a hand that may possibly be the best hand. In the first case, you have to think you have almost as good a chance of getting away with the bluff as you would with a pure bluff, taking into account the pot odds you're getting. . .

[/ QUOTE ]

That pretty much covers your situation.

George Rice · #6 09-30-2003, 08:25 PM

I should have said that his chances of having a calling hand will always be less than 2 in 3, which is what you would need to make the bet. Assuming that he doesn't raise when he has a hand. Otherwise a little less. But that will always be the case, so bet away.

The Gift Of Gab · #7 09-30-2003, 08:41 PM

I have no idea what to call them, but bets of this type are much more common in big-bet hold 'em than in limit. Situations where you think you have the best hand with cards to come, are vulnerable to free cards, and are unlikely to be called by worse hands are very tricky when facing good players.

Ignatius · #8 10-01-2003, 09:11 AM

Louie Landale · #9 10-01-2003, 12:37 PM

Well, I prefer "value bet" to be based on the show-down value of your hand (as opposed to bluffing, getting free cards, yaddy yaddy), but the definition embraced by the authors seems to suggest it needs to be a favorite even when called. I got reamed pretty bad last year (here) when I suggested otherwise.

But on to a nit-pick: this bet is a loser if its made on the river. This bet is a winner with more cards to come because it denys the opponent free cards to beat you. If you had a K-high straight flush and the opponent will only call with an A-high straight flush (and cannot make one if he doesn't already have it), your bet would be a loser.

And responding to someone else: yes, you should bet nothing for the reasons given, but betting nothing is clearly a "bluff".

- Louie

huzitup2 · #10 10-08-2003, 03:17 AM

the [stud] hand in Theory Of Poker where "you" have four Jacks showing on 6th street and bet into a player who cannot have you beat - but does have a board that makes it possible for him to have a draw that would beat you.

This is not the best example since here you KNOW you are ahead when you make the bet.

Perhaps a better example would be if you had trip Kings as well as an open-ended royal flush draw; in this case your whole hand is not exposed (you don't have open trips), and your opponent has "obvious" (but also not exposed) trips (2s - 8s) but from the way the hand was played you think this may be all he has.

I cannot imagine not betting in such a situation; even if he is full you have 10 outs, if he's not you're a huge favorite.

Nonetheless, unless the pot were very small - unlikely given the strength of both of your hands - I do NOT want him to call.

*

Neither of these is identical to the situation you described but both illustrate the same basic principle.

Your bet - in any of these three cases - is made to protect what is likely the best hand, but in none of the three do you want to be called. (In the case of the "4 Jacks" the pot might be big enough to justify an opponent's call with an open-ended straight flush draw; if he has seen 15-20 cards he only needs odds of ~ 15-1 to be correct in calling your bet, but giving him a free draw would be insane).

*

I too have never read of a name for this bet - but I'll go along with "protection bet" (until someone comes up with a better name for it).

Best wishes,

- H