It is definitely possible. Just not in any applicable sense because the overlap is so minute. For instance, most people attach a great deal of sentiment to flopped sets. So take a board of AK23hhhh7x. It is possible that someone would fold the 6h yet call 33 making a bet with the 5h potentially a bluff and a value bet.

Well the better the player the more applicable it is because of murky ranges and how good players react with them. A fish (or better yet an abc guy), is typically always or never doing something. Like in your example they may never fold sets or they may never call without at least the second nuts and you would have a good idea of which they had, whereas a good player (assuming he thinks you are good) will sometimes just 'flip a coin' or let some other external factor influence a decision that he doesn't think really matters in the long run. So sometimes he calls with the 6h and sometimes he doesn't. The fish lets external factors get in the way too, but for reasons unrelated to poker and when their range is still face up. But at the time the chips are released the bet is only for value or as a bluff, but you only know which one it is against the fish/abc and not the good player. It all circles back to shania and merged ranges and 'irrational decisions'.

This is exactly what I was saying, not sure how I could make that any more clear or how anything else could be inferred from my posts. What happens (whether it ends up working for value, working as a bluff, or failing as either) is completely irrelevant to what I was saying, which is why i never mentioned it.

I assumed you were talking about the intention of the bet when you said 'clicking buttons'. As in you should always know if the bet is for value or a bluff.

this is a ridiculous awful justification to an equally awful bet.

how can you ever think of the value of the 2p calling when there is definitely higher % that sets will call and YOU LOSE MORE MONEY WHICH YOU SEEM TO AVOID IN ALL YOUR POSTS..!>>@>^#*%*#Q tilting

if you want to bet because 30% of his range is worse calling, 60% is better calling and 10% is better folding it is in fact a "value-bluff" but its still awful and simply losing

Easy there. Of course we lose when they call with a set, and I don't avoid it at all. I actually posted what I thought was a decent shot at looking at the EV of a bet earlier which included sets and what I thought was a reasonable calling frequency.

No reason to go on tilt becuase I look at something differently than you (and it seems most others). I still dont agree that checking behind is the best play, but thats OK too. It is one of the things (I think) that makes these discussions interesting.

No one is coming after you for advocating a bet. There is an argument for making a bet. (not one I find compelling enough, but there is room for a discussion) People are taking issue with the way you are justifying it. You mention him calling with 2 pair and folding a set. A bet for value and a bluff are at opposite ends of the spectrum. You cannot use both as reasons to bet.

What is tilting is that although you come across as intelligent and articulate, you seem to be failing at grasping this very basic concept. Someone in here with 18 posts and a bevy of grammatical errors would not be attracting the same kind of ire.

It's just super annoying in general on strategy forums when people pull the 'agree to disagree' card on what boils down to a fundamentally mathematical/logical concept. You either get it or you don't, and saying you 'look at things differently' is just a passive-aggressive way of saying you don't care enough to try to understand the argument.

I think in hand 2, If I bet and v1 calls there is a pretty good shot at v2 folding 22 here, but for the most part I am looking to get called by 2p and maybe some heros.
Is my decision on both hands just check or stuff? I think much smaller bets can get called by a wider range of hands. In both hands I bet but did not stuff. Shouldn't villians calling ranges widen the less I bet, making any bet I make more +EV since no one is ever raising as a bluff?

I am quite sure that in this hand neither villain is close to good enough for a bet to be correct. However, I thought we had distinguished the difference between one's intention when they make a bet and the bet's actual purpose.

Wow, never knew that I had the power to tilt so many by trying to be calm about something.

OK, so to make you guys happy, I think the bet is for value if I had to choose. BUT, I don't view this concept as being as black and white as seemingly the rest of you do. Whether it is semantics or something else, I don't see how we can logically say that if we (1) bet two pair here with the intention of it being for value, and (2) villain shows bottom set as he folds, that we can consider that bet for "value" anymore. And the idea that we "must" consider a bet as only being for one thing or the other and not for potentially some combination of the two seems limiting to me.

If that causes some of you to flame me, OK...can't do much about that. I consider it to be merging the reasons for a bet based on what villain may do with different parts of their range. IF there is some non-zero chance that villain will fold bottom set to our bet, does that not add to the EV of the "value" bet in general? I think so.

Well, I posted what I thought the math would look like reasonably and no one commented at all. And to me, the idea that this particular spot is something that "you either get it or you don't" is laughable. I bet if durrr or some other known respected player posted this same train of thought (two way bet), you guys would stop and say "hmmm, maybe I should think about that a bit." That's fine...clearly I am nowhere near any of those players nor the better players on this forum overall in terms of poker thought depth. But simply because I choose to look at a particular situation differently and in an unorthodox way doesn't mean that it is incorrect.

And as far as "not caring enough to understand the argument", I guess I would say that would seem to apply more to you and the others who think this is only black or white much moreso than it applies to my thought process (which has admittedly a lot of grey in it). But, I can respect that you guys feel that way and am fine with that.

I don't see any reason to post on here if people can't have a good long argument about something (as we have here), and then decide that there will be no movement towards one or the other, and simply agree to disagree. I don't view that as a cop out or passive aggressive at all. I simply don't feel the need to beat my head agains the wall in an effort to force someone to think the way that I do. Perhaps that is a weakness in me.

I don't think it is at all out of line for some villians to call 2p in either hand and sometimes fold sets. You never really know what they will do unless you play a lot with them which I haven't. Some people have a hard time calling off their stack on the river when 1 card beats them or they just aren't near the nuts, while others don't give a **** about the money and will call you if they think you are bluffing. A lot of the "feel" players (and I sometimes make decisions like this) will fold sets to pressure one day and make the call the next. There are just factors in their decisions which we aren't privy to or just aren't logical to us. I remember playing in a big 10/25 nl game last year where a fish min 4 bet me oop and I 5-bet stuffed for around 10k (was massive overbet). The fish, who plays really high in pits (I didn't know this at the time) folds KK face up because his wife was sitting there and he didn't want to lose a big pot in front of her (lucky me!). My point is that you never really know, especially with rec players what they will do, so the 'merge' argument is completely valid especially in hands like the ones I posted.