How do you know if you are value betting or bluffing in certain spots? - Page 2 - Poker Theory

pg_780 · 05-23-2012, 01:07 AM

There are times pre flop when it's neither a value bet or a bluff; the stack sizes aren't big enough to see a flop but you have enough equity to get it in.

archimedes11 · 05-23-2012, 07:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pg_780

There are times pre flop when it's neither a value bet or a bluff; the stack sizes aren't big enough to see a flop but you have enough equity to get it in.

enough equity as in relying mostly on FE? and if it's just pure hand v hand equity (i dunno what else to call it), if you have enough equity to get it in, wouldn't that be considered a 'value bet'? Like if u shove AKo pre, you usually want a call right? (depending on villain of course)

pg_780 · 05-24-2012, 01:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by archimedes11

enough equity as in relying mostly on FE? and if it's just pure hand v hand equity (i dunno what else to call it), if you have enough equity to get it in, wouldn't that be considered a 'value bet'? Like if u shove AKo pre, you usually want a call right? (depending on villain of course)

You could actually be a little behind villain's range, but still profitably get it in cause of your money and blinds already in the pot.

Might be considered a merge (?)

jcl · 05-24-2012, 09:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by archimedes11

hahaha ok sure, I agree with that of course. But how about if you've got like 30bb left in a tournament, and you 3bet jam TT over someone's UTG open who's got like 70bb. You could conceivably make this play to get villain to fold QQ, JJ, AQ, AJ. But you could also arguably do this for value if you think he could call with 99-77 and ATs. I understand that what I'm suggesting is weird, cause why would villain call with < TT but fold > TT right. It's a pretty bad example, but the principle is what I'm after. What are your thoughts?

this is just a maths play, defining it is pretty irrelevant.

in ur OP example betting KK on the turn, with the read that he is never folding an A as u suggested, is clearly for value. dont see how thats not obvious. if ur doing it as a bluff with the read he never folds an A ur clearly a retard.

but again, defining bets as one or the other doesnt mean jack****. u make the most +ev action, end of story.