Hey guys!

I was watching a vid a few moments ago and the author was talking about how taking thin +EV spots in live poker can sometimes be -EV.

The author had suggested that in live poker because we see so few hands/hr sometimes it can be wise to skip over thin +EV high variance spots to help minimize your variance and help ease the pressure on your roll.

This struck a chord with me because I feel like in my own game Im constantly putting myself into thin +EV spots in the form of razor thin value betting or a thin +EV bluff spots which more often then not fail.

What do you guys think?

Do any of you see thin spots you consciously pass on to help ease your variance?

Might you employ this logic into your game if your bankroll has taken a small hit recently?

I've passed up thin edges before but I tend to think it's a bad thing because I did that probably out of anxiety more than anything else.

If they tend to fail then I would question the assumption that those are +EV spots. They sound like -EV spots to me unless you're convinced that you had a lot of bad luck.

yeah, agree. using this concept is probably just an excuse for weak players not to improve and play an autopiloting hit or fold style.

Adding to what I said earlier, this easily could reduce variance and lower your edge by only a tiny amount, but I think these ideas are dangerous if they cause you to start passing up too many edges. If your winrate is lowered too much it could actually increase your variance.

This is more likely the answer. To even be thin value betting, you need to have the following:

1. An accurate range of your villain, including what he will call your bet with.
2. Know how your hand will match up with that calling range.
3. Actually have an edge against that calling range. DS in the Theory of Poker said you shouldn't thin value bet unless you have at least a 55/45 edge against that range.

It doesn't matter if you can beat TPWK if he doesn't have that in his range by the river. My guess is at LLSNL, almost no player has done the work at home to be able to thin value bet profitably.

Let's say you're heads up against a player pre-flop with 22. This player goes all-in and has you covered. You have 500bb effectively.

Now let's say this player "accidentally" reveals their hand and shows you AKo.

You're 52% to win, 46% to lose and 2% to tie.

Including your stack you have a 2000bb bankroll. So by calling you're risking 1/4 of it on a small edge.

What would you do and why?

Gah someone stole my words. I'd say you're likely calling -ev spots thin value spots due to an over eagerness to win pots.

I think thin value is a great way to increase or regain a bankroll. Maybe this isn't as thin as OP is describing, but for example:

Pot is $160, $52 behind, we're at the river when the FD has hit, board paired, and we have top pair nut kicker. Villain checks, - I used to check back in this spot, just safely show down what I think is likely the winner if Villain didn't suck out.

My thinking now is more like - how often do I ever make a hand in this game? And how often do I make a hand PLUS get action? Meaning, we've actually got something and players want to play with us. It doesn't happen very often to me. And I'd imagine that's pretty much universal.

Given that, my thinking moved from "let's just play it safe here and check back" to "this is my bread and butter, bet as much as we think Villain will call with worse".

I see these regulars who make a premium hand and check down. A premium hand on a scary board, but with obvious tells from the other players that they have squadoosh. Yet they check back because they fear the nuts and "don't want to get greedy".

C'mon - when we sit at a poker table, we want to take every single dollar on that table. I do anyway. Hasn't gone that way yet, but I'm on that mission. hahaha.

Bankroll is a huge consideration. I wouldn't change my play to what I'd consider less than optimal because of bankroll issues. And believe me, I hear ya with bankroll considerations. It's key - lots of players drop out of the game they love because of bankroll.

So I'd advise dropping down in limits if the bankroll gets that tight. It sucks, but it's correct IMO. So if you're at $1 $2, and are losing even while playing well, and it gets to the point where you're really "feeling the burn", then try online. Micro stakes.

Believe it or not, you'll learn a ton there, you'll accelerate your learning curve exponentially, and you'll stay in the game while limiting your exposure to risk that makes you want to puke when the bills come. Or so I've read. ha.

Don't sacrifice optimal play because of bankroll. Earn the money at every opportunity. Play within your bankroll, whatever it is. Build it over time, move up, and adjust to the new skill set.

Good luck de4df1sh.

I probably call because I can still do some damage with a 1500bb bankroll, assuming this isn't a regularly recurring spot and I can go back to my 100bb game full of fish. Now if my bankroll is 200bb and I'm being put all in for 100bb, now I probably have to fold. I've been there before, back when my bankroll was whatever was leftover after the bills were paid from that paycheck.

Im folding this all day long for the same reasons we dont look to setmine when the effective stacks are shallow.

Setmining with shallow stacks is unprofitable. This is a profitable spot.

How can it possible be profitable if we are risking 1/4th of our roll on a 2% edge?

Risking 25% of our roll on a 2% edge is waaaaay out of my risk tolerance.

Play with a bigger bankroll so I wouldn't play afraid in spots like this. Or at least be in a position that even if you are risking that much, you can rebuild your bankroll easily if you lose. Personally, I never risk that high a percentage of my bankroll in just one session.

I think that example really shows the problem of playing with a small bankroll. It doesn't really show there is a problem with taking advantage of a small edge.

The point I was trying to make was is it wrong to pass up on small +EV/high variance plays if you have a tight bankroll. I understand this is not OPTIMAL.

Lets take a scenario in where you live in a state that online poker is not an option, so the smallest takes you can play(excluding house games) Is 1/2. If you have a limited bankroll of say 20-30BI with no disposable income or ability to reload your roll can it be a more +EV in terms of bankroll and psychological health to avoid pressing these thin edges.

Now while taking these spots is optimal and good in general, are they NECESSARY. Is it that terrible to wait for bigger +EV spots?

This is a matter of asking yourself the wrong questions and getting in situations you should never put yourself in.

First, of course it is profitable in the long run. If you don't understand that every +EV situation is profitable, you need to do a lot more homework.

Second, you should never put yourself in a situation where you're not willing to take advantage of a +EV situation. I understand you don't want to risk 1/4 of your bankroll. I don't either. However, the solution is to refuse to sit in that game in the first place. If you got really lucky, then it is time to get up from the table immediately. The second you take cards at the table, you are putting that stack at risk. You need to understand that as well.

If you don't have enough of a bankroll to be comfortable at the stakes, you find a non-poker way to add to it. Save money, take a second job, whatever it is. When you have enough, then go play.

I understand that it is profitable in the long but is it really mandatory that we risk 500bbs on a play that has an EV of 20bbs?

Unless you don't want to make money, not taking that edge is nothing more than fear. Pure and simple, BR considerations aside, passing up +EV spots no matter how big the swing is losing poker.

Risking 1/4 of your BR for a 4% edge is not going to show a long term profit.

There are definitely situations where taking in game +EV spots is actually -EV career-wise.

To put it in extreme terms. If you're risking 100% of your bankroll on a 1% edge your EV is +. But if you lose then you may not be able to continue playing afterwards until you earn enough through a job/whatever to play again. You just cost yourself all +EV spots in the near future.

If you're making $5 an hour with low risk of ruin its a lot better than making $6 an hour with a high risk of ruin.

It is perfectly fine to play in games where you pass up +EV high variance spots. For example, there could be two games to choose from: a lower-limit, high-rake game where you're taking all the +EV spots you can; or a fishier, higher-limit game with less % rake where you are only taking the lower variance situations but the overall skill level is so much lower that you make more in this game even though you are passing up on some value in exchange for bankroll safety. Your hourly in the 2nd game is larger than the first but your risk of ruin is the same. Playing the 2nd game is better.

Wrong. In the long term it shows a profit. It is in the short term where it may not.

Venice made a rather key point earlier: most players have not put in the time to accurately determine what spots are truly thin + or - EV spots.

If because of risk of ruin/having to drop down to lower stakes your hourly can be non existent/lower then you can assign an expectation to that risk of ruin. If it's not balanced by the good side of varience, i.e. being able to play more frequently or in higher limits/better locations because of winning the flip then its completely feasible for an in-game edge to be -ev long term.

There are rare situations where not taking a bet that would be small +EV if that hand was taken in isolation is higher +EV long term. This happens when effective stakes are bigger then the maximum buy in. In those situation a bet that is +EV might risk so much that your giving up a chance for a much bigger +EV play later.

Take the maniac example, where the maniac shove and shows you his hand. Assume a situation where bankrolls are big enough not to matter and the max buy in is 100BB. If effective stacks are 100BB or less and the maniac does this you call with any hand that is +EV. However, when effective stacks are more then 100BB there is a point where the chance of taking the small edge now and losing is greater then the chance of having a higher EV hand shortly in the future. Imagine a sequence where your at 200BB effective. Manaic shoves and you call with a 4% edge. Your EV on that hand is 112BB. Win or lose, the very next hand the maniac shoves again and you have AA vs his under pair. Now your edge is around 60% but the effective stacks are only 100BB, is your EV is only 140BB. If you had folded the first hand and waited for the second hand you could have gotten it all in for at 200BB effective for 280BB EV, more the combined EV of calling both hands.

In terms of pure math is is really not going to come up in a game. Even at two buy ins deep and getting a huge advantage on the second hand the difference in EV is small. Where it does matter is that in reality your not sure of your exact edge. In a situation where you think you have a small edge against his over all range but you also expect him to give you much better opportunities in the near future, waiting can be better.

Value betting thinly is not a leak.

Making "value bets" that are actually -EV is a leak.

Having a small bankroll is a leak.

Completely different issues...not sure why you would compare them really

You are in a game you are not adequately rolled for. Stand up and leave that game because you are going to make sub-optimal decisions out of fear

All of this...I would argue that what you are describing as thin value is probably just not understanding how your holding plays against the villain's range or you don't really understand how to range a villain appropriately.

Since no one mentioned this, I'll throw it out there...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelly_criterion

Kelly says you should not risk more than ~6% of your bankroll in this situation, so I would fold. Also, betting greater than 2x Kelly (12% in this case), you are guaranteed to go broke in the long run.

From a practical standpoint, Doyle Brunson says at the end of super system that if someone layed him 10-1 on a coin flip for everything he owned, he'd take it cuz he's confident he'd be able to come back if he lost. So maybe if you're that good it's worth it to push ruin a little bit