here, i will quickly catch up on the last couple of days:
3/21/14
weight: 199.8 lbs (-1.2 today, -1.2 overall)
ending bankroll: $113.16 (+12.51, +12.51)
- finished up PMTM today (1hr)
- got through a third of HCC (1hr)
- played 526 hands of 4nl fr (ran hot, + $12.51)
- 30 min. stretching/foam-rolling
- Session 1, Talk 1 of Radical Self-Acceptance ("Relating to the Anxiety of Imperfection")
- thru page 6 in Full Catastrophe Living
3/22/14
weight: 200.2 lbs (+0.4 today, -0.8 overall)
ending bankroll: $151.25 (+38.09 today, +50.60 overall)
- studied through page 21 of Poker's Postflop Course (PPC) (1hr)
- finished up refresher of HCC (2hr)
- played 1006 hands of 4nl fr (ran hot, + $38.09)
- 30 min. stretching/foam-rolling
- Session 1, Talk 1 of Radical Self-Acceptance ("Relating to the Anxiety of Imperfection") (yes, again!
)
- finished reading Introduction in Full Catastrophe Living
The first section of PPC deals with the favorable scenario of being checked to while in position on the river. The initial question in the decision flow chart is, "do I have a profitable value bet? and if so, what size bet is most profitable?".
We set the stage to begin answering this initial question by reviewing the basics of an EV equation. We looked at the difference between "true" EV (TEV) and "evaluative" EV (EEV). Most of the time, we use EEV, which doesn't include our equity share of the pot, but only examines the relative value in the bet we are making. In doing so, we only look at the opponent's calling range. If he calls with more worse hands than better hands, the bet is +EV and that's all that matters. One thing to be aware of, though, is the impact that the opponent's inactive range has on the EV of our bet. As the inactive range (the hands that he simply folds to our bet) grows, there is a truncating effect on the EV of our bet. The EEV will still look the same, and that's usually good enough for our purposes: to bet or not to bet. But, the TEV of the bet will shrink, or be truncated, as the inactive range grows. Truncation, thus, has a muting effect on the amplitude of both possible mistakes when value betting: 1) betting too big when the villain's calling range is mostly better hands; and 2) betting too small when the villain's calling range is mostly worse hands. So, EEV will answer the question, "is betting better than checking". TEV will tell us by how much.
With the EV review completed, we began looking at value-betting decisions, first examining the easy scenario of having the nuts. When we have the nuts (or virtual nuts), a phenomenon described as the "doubling effect" is in play. If we have a profitable value bet at $x, then in order to have an equally profitable value bet at $2x, the villain will have to reduce his calling percent by less than half. Twice the bet, half the calls. Half the bet, twice the calls. The strength of his range dictates how large you can profitably value bet.
However, value-betting when we don't have the nuts is more complex. If the opponent's calling range is "inelastic", meaning it won't change much based on your bet size, then usually you should bet as big as possible. Most calling ranges aren't inelastic though. They are very much "elastic", meaning the villain will fold more and more of his range as your bets get bigger and bigger. This means we have to figure out what bet size yields the most profit. This is the crux of most value-betting decisions, and this is the subject of the rest of the section: Value-Betting When Checked to In Position.