https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kgkj..._tDcTN5tuw-MWg

At 7:30

If you bet early, you get information cheaply because the bets get bigger on each street. I understand that. However, if you don't bet on the flop and there's 12 cents in the pot, and your opponent doesn't bet, but then you bet on the river, you're still getting the information for the same price.

So how is it better to bet earlier to get information cheaper, when if no one bets you more or less get the same information (+1 card on board) for the same price? To me it doesn't seem like you get that information for cheaper.

Could anyone tell me how I'm wrong?

Thank you.

He is basicly saying that by playing hands more aggressively you can get more information about your opponents range, and the earlier you make the aggressive move the more information you can get. However some of the points of the older gripsed videos are kinda outdated so be selective.

I completely and understand and agree with what your said, however, talking about the price being cheaper isn't actually true if you bet on the turn when the flop was checked through.

Thanks for the warning, too.

I kind of agree with you.
Gripsed is talking about how betting enables you to narrow a villain's range, so you can make better decisions when the bets get big. Betting the flop often makes your decisions easier on later streets because you have eliminated some hands from villain's range. You've effectively bought some "information" at a cheap price. This is kind of an outdated concept, but it's still somewhat valid in the micros.

When you get better at hand reading and are playing tougher opponents that aren't ABC/straightforward, information is harder to come by, and checking is often a better way to get value or minimise your losses. Indeed, I often check because I want to keep a villain's range wide and weak, not narrow and strong. C-betting with air usually just narrows a villain's range and gives you the info that you're often losing. i.e. it's not very useful info, so why bother paying for it?

My aim as a poker player isn't to make my decisions easier. My aim is to make the most money. If I can get free info (and free cards) I'll often check.

Is Evan from gripsed someone worth learning from or is he not experienced enough?

He's very good, but the advice he mentioned that OP is questioning isn't the best

As Arty mentioned, it might be good for beginners though

He's very experienced and has many videos showing him winning MTTs for several thousands of dollars while he explains his thought process in every hand.
More importantly, he knows how microstakes tourneys play, because he grinds them for a living, so his advice is pretty solid.

His older videos (like the one linked by OP) are all very basic/ABC, but you need to understand all the fundamentals if you want to be a long-term winner. I'm personally not a huge fan of the vids (I barely play tourneys any more), but I can't think of any other YouTube channels that provide as much good free content to microstakes tourney grinders.

You're a poster I totally trust and give credit to so I'll be taking notice of things Evan says from now on.

Interesting point, so when your c-betting you're usually doing it for value? I just find that a lot of micro players will donk bet turn forcing you to fold with this scenario because c-betting flop is very standard, so I wonder if it's profitable to do this on a general basis or not?

Good point here too.

I have a question here. I hear people say this a lot. That doing something is "outdated". I'm not sure whether I understand this. Do you mean that nowadays more people will call or raise just because they know you are trying to get information? But by them calling or raising don't you still get information no matter how "outdated" the strategy is? Surely if they are doing something just to throw you off wouldnt they foten be making a mathematically incorrect mistake in calling or raising with a hand they shouldnt be in that situation anyway and therefore it would be encouraged by the hero?

No, I'm not usually c-betting for value, on the flop at least. (It's hard to make a pair on the flop).
I don't c-bet at a high frequency, but I do it with a somewhat polarized range, which contains more weak hands than "value hands". I'm not betting for "info", because I already know what my plan is. i.e. If I have a value hand, my plan is to build a big pot and get value. If I have total air, I'm snap-folding if I get raised and I'm often shutting down on the turn. If I have a (backdoor) draw that I decided to bet on the flop, I'll usually barrel on "good" turn cards. If I get raised, then I get some info that I'm probably behind, but since my hand/draw was weak I knew that already.

I rarely c-bet with mid-strength hands, partly because I don't think that it maximises EV, but also because I don't want to get myself into a big pot where the decisions will be tougher. This goes counter to Gripsed's idea. He said to bet to make decisions easier later on. But with marginal hands, you don't want to have to make a tough decision in a big pot on the river. By pot-controlling earlier on, you have smaller pots which often means easier decisions. I don't want to call off my stack with just one pair on the river. If my stack isn't at risk, because I checked the flop and made it a two street game, any mistake on the river is much smaller.

In the old days, players would bet or (minraise) their medium-strength hands to "find out where I'm at". If the bet elicited a fold, the only info they got was "I was ahead", but they got no value. If the bet/raise elicited a call or a raise then the info they received was "I have the worst hand", and it cost them extra money to find it out.
It should be obvious that I don't want to build big pots with mid-strength hands that are usually losing if they get action.
I can bet air and draws, because I don't often intend to continue vs further action. I already have the "info" that my hand is losing, so I'm not betting for value or info. I'm betting as a bluff.

When bad players donk the flop, they usually are "betting for info", whether they realise it or not. The "weak lead" is often a marginal one pair hand. Ironically, while the donker thinks he's "betting for info", he's actually giving away free info! I can play appropriately against his weak range; often by folding (and saving myself money that I might have "wasted" by c-betting), but sometimes by calling and letting him valueown himself when I have the best hand in position.

No, I meant what I wrote above. The concept of "betting for info" is outdated.
The main reasons to bet are:
* For value: to get called by worse).
* As a (semi-)bluff: to fold out better hands.
* To collect dead money: to fold out hands that might be losing at the moment but have good equity against me. (e.g. I'll bet 22 on A93, because I don't want JTs sucking out for free. I want to win 100% of the pot, by folding out a hand that has almost 35% equity).

Information is a by-product of betting. It's not the main purpose.

Besides, if you use a HUD wisely, you have a ton of info there on your screen, and this means many players' ranges (especially nits') are pretty much face up. You don't bet/raise to "find out where I'm at" if a nit raises you on K84. He has a set.

Ok ya I see what you mean. I agree with when and why you C-bet for sure. True that if you bet there has to be more of a plus side to it that just getting info alone.

Kinda reminds me of raising for information

"In the old days, players would bet or (minraise) their medium-strength hands to "find out where I'm at"

That's what Phil Hellmuth said to do in 'Play Poker Like THe Pros' and that's what I've been doing, until I read your post...

Play Poker Like The Pros is probably one of the worst poker books ever.

How do you know your opponent isn't going to bet? You're actually comparing three cases but are taking your conclusion from only two of them:

A) Bet flop
B) Check flop and it gets checked through to river
C) Check flop, villain bets somewhere - You have no idea if villain is betting for value or taking a stab. You either need to bail out or take some other action (call or raise) that will risk more than a flop bet.

Betting for information is dubious, at best, and often used as an excuse to spew. But against some villains this can be a good line ie; ABC-ish TAG players who are prone to taking stabs at orphan pots but who won't show any resistance otherwise unless they have a good hand.

And don't listen to any advice in any Helmuth book, ever.