a bet/fold question - Poker Theory - General Poker Theory Forum

Two Plus Two Forums Poker Strategy Poker Theory & GTO

a bet/fold question

Post Reply Subscribe

...

05-07-2019 , 10:15 AM

Bob148

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: May 2012 Posts: 11,972

from a limit holdem forum thread:

Quote:

From a purely GTO perspective, does bet fold with any sort of value hand really make sense?

Quote:

Provided with enough combos in our range, I believe that all action regions would be utilized. In a cutoff vs button battle(which this hand is in effect imo), we seem to have enough hands to satisfy this condition; only with unrealistic ranges will there be a significant ev drop from our worst bet/call combo; those hands that are just almost strong enough to bet/call should be bet/folded; to eliminate bet/fold in favor of strengthening our check call range would be a systemic error.

Quote:

Clearly that's correct with our bluffs, but why would we ever bet a hand for value just to fold it?

Quote:

thing is about thin value hands: once raised, these hands become bluffcatchers(as they shouldn't be beating any of the opponent's value hands). So it's a fine line between (getting value vs opponent's calling range) and (getting owned by the opponent's strong hands and draws).

Quote:

Isn't it just better to check and carry our value forward to the next street if our plan is to fold to a raise?

Quote:

Not necessarily. This adjustment comes with some liability. (missing value vs opponent's calling range) is the biggest liability, (free cards for the opponent are typically bad for us; except if we hold a near unbeatable hand, which we do not with QQ), (successfully calling bluffs on the river may seem like a good thing for us. however, the implication is that these calls are around 0ev vs strong players; the out of position player will earn ev near (pot); if his ev is (pot) then what's left for QQ on the river? a breakeven river call?

This adjustment does come with some ev gain to other strategy segments: (river betting range when checked to) gains ev by the inclusion of QQ in the turn checking range, as does (river checkback range) see an ev increase due to the strengthened turn checking range in position.

The question then becomes one of weighing these liabilities vs the gains. For example, vs someone that just won't believe my river bet and will call very light(perhaps with Q9s?), I would strongly consider checking the turn with many more hands than I usually would(hint: getting opponent's to put money in the pot drawing dead = big profits; equity on the river is 100% or 0% with no in between. However, vs someone that would overfold the turn much too often(a significant ev gain), I would bet fold much more often than I usually would.

There are always trade offs when choosing different lines to include or exclude in a strategy. This effect is quite pronounced in the no limit holdem strategies, particularly once we find out if a player is of these two varieties:

a) checks the turn for pot control often, will call river bet with one pair.
b) bets the turn for value often, will check river with one pair.

these are my two most frequent opponents(more rare is the one that bets 3 streets with just top pair good kicker). Vs these listed opponents, the liabilities and ev gains break down like this:

vs (a) all of my flop draws gain ev(yes even those that hit the turn, missing a check raise, gain; the river bet that my opponent will surely call is a big win), my flop bluffcatchers gain ev(one less street to pay off = money saved). However, the liability is that my strong flop hands lose ev(less turn bets are bad for strong hands), and more of my opponent's range gets to see the whole board(which benefits his draws and bluffcatchers).

vs (b) my strong hands gain ev but my draws and bluffcatchers lose ev.

Although most players will choose one strategy or the other, the best players will correctly utilize both lines as a part of a balanced breakfast; checking the turn just enough to protect vs big river bets, while also betting the turn just enough to get max value with strong hands.

What does this have to do with limit holdem? not much in the sense that (average showdown value) of the betting range is a lower value in limit holdem, but the liabilities and ev gains work the same way in all forms of poker, just at different amplitudes depending on average betsize.

That's all fun mumbo jumbo for me with my morning coffee, but still doesn't answer the question:

"Why is bet/fold with thin value hands a necessary part of correct strategy?"

I think it's simply (a) to get value/protection with hands that earn more as a bet than as a check(yes I consider checking to be a positive value).

However, the equilibrium is easily disturbed by human error. Some guys play terrible vs turn checks. Some guys showdown way too much vs the bet bet check river line. Some guys even showdown way too much vs the bet bet bet line. Others will let you win unimproved more often on the turn(don't let their tight call/raise ranges scare you, protection is quite valuable here).

So if the conditions are satisfied in such a way that I have hands in my range that are both (a) too strong to check; they earn more as a bet, and (b) too weak to bet/call, not enough draw potential + bluffcatching value to continue vs a raise, that leaves these one option, bet fold.

In some very rare cases, I could imagine there being zero bet fold range in equilibrium. This might occur if my range has become completely polarized by action on the previous betting rounds, causing a massive ev drop between my worst bet/call combo to my best check call combo. However, I think this would amount to nothing significant; it would be a novelty created by using weird ranges, which would create a non standard future street equilibrium where bet fold is excluded.

questions or comments regarding any game/structure are welcome.

Quote

05-07-2019 , 02:00 PM

just_grindin

Pooh-Bah

Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 5,263

I am not sure I wholly agree with the notion that given enough combinations all potential action sequences will be realized in equillibrium.

I would think stack and pot size would play more into that than number of combinations.

I would also assume there are just some betting/raising lines that are not tenable because they only work for value and it would be difficult to find the appropriate non-value hands to include in the line.

Otherwise I mostly agree with the rest of your post. Glad you posted here I didn't want to have to comment in HSLH forum where I only lurk since I don't play that game much but find the HH quite enjoyable and enlightening.

Quote

05-07-2019 , 04:04 PM

Bob148

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: May 2012 Posts: 11,972

Quote:

I would think stack and pot size would play more into that than number of combinations.

This is true, but in limit holdem discussion, these variables are assumed to be static without more information.

Quote:

I would also assume there are just some betting/raising lines that are not tenable because they only work for value and it would be difficult to find the appropriate non-value hands to include in the line.

The assumption here is that 3bet preflop/bet flop/bet turn is tenable(I agree with this assumption; if betting the turn isn't ever correct, should we really be bloating the pot on the flop? I doubt it), but perhaps you make a good point that is more relevant to other game types(2-7 triple draw comes to mind; if i bet predraw and 1st draw, and my opponent pats 2nd draw? hmm this has relevant implications).

Quote

Post Reply Subscribe

...