My favorite comment on this subject (two-way bets, value bluffs, whatever) is the following quote from the aejones thread by VanVeen:

Concise and to the point.

I am under the assumption that value bluffing=range merging. When a villain perceives your range to be highly polarized, what happens is that sometimes they will fold a better hand(giving you credit for the top polar end of your range) and sometimes they will call worse(believing you have the bottom polar end of your range) obviousely in any specific hand no competent villain will fold a better hand AND call with a worse hand in the same hand at the same time, that is ******ed. It is one or the other in any specific hand, villain will either bluff catch or he won't. However if you play the same exact hand the same way in a vacuum a bunch of times where you make a thin bet that villain perceives as polarized...sometimes he will bluffcatch(you gain value from his bluff catchers) and other times he will fold a better hand(you make a successful bluff). You can't make a "value bluff" in one specific hand, because people will not bluffcatch a worse hand but fold a better one at the same time, that makes absolutely no sense, one specific bet at one specific time is either a value bet or a bluff, it can't ever be both at the same time. But over a string of hands, the same bet can be either a value bet or a bluff. "Sometimes he calls with worse and sometimes he folds better" does not refer to a specific situation at a specific time, it refers to a specific situation repeated.

@waffe23 :
I also like VanVeen’s comment for the reasons you cited.



I would add that a bet is either considered “value bet” or “bluff” based on hero’s intention. If he wants a call, it’s a value bet. If he wants a fold, it’s a bluff. We cannot say that he wants a call for the bottom part of his range but a fold for the top part, that doesn’t make sense. If villain ends up calling light (because he perceives hero has a polarized range for instance) and hero ends up winning the pot with a very marginal hand, I just see that as some hidden equity added to the bluff, because hero’s intent was nonetheless to make villain fold.

What is this stuff about value bluffing? Are you talking about post oak bluff? This is well known concept where you make a smallish bet which to the victim looks like you are value betting so they fold. On some boards bigger bets look like bluffs and value size bets are much more believable and scary. Value bluffing as a word makes no sense since a bet is either for value or as a bluff. So if you want to value bluff this implies you want to make better hand to fold and worse hand to call?

I only read parts of this thread so maybe I have no business commenting !

No, value bluffing (range merging) is where you don't really know if it's for value or a bluff. Read the link i posted upthread.

fwiw i still disagree with vanveen

I stumbled apon a sweet (and rare) $500/$1000 match a few months ago on Fulltilt featuring Ivey, Antonius, Durrrr, Benyamine and somebody else (presumably the mark). I refrained from joining in... Anyhow, I watched Durrrr overbet shove ~$50k into a $30K pot (estimation, can't remember actual numbers) on a flop of AT3r after he had 3bet Antonius PF. Antonius called with QQ and Durrrr showed A8o.

Pretty dern cool, and I'm sure we can all understand why Antonius called given Durrrr's style, and thus why Durrrr shoved. I'm trying to figure out what to call his bet. Is it simply a valuebet? Or can this qualify as a valuebluff?

I'd say value bet. Even at this level, Antonius' 3bet calling range isn't going to include many Ax hands. He'd either fold or 4bet them.

Ok, tell me whats wrong about this thought,

According to your graph with the green blue and red line etc...
Lets say i have 20% equity and i bet half pot (green line).. does my opponent only have to fold 1 in 10 times (10% at intersection point) to make this a break-even play???

That can't be true right

Great info!

It seems that i'll never understand... Why if our bluff is successful we win all the money... if it's unsuccesful... we lose only our last bet...
1) the same but P - Villain amount + 1.5 BB
2) PF + (1-F)*(HP1 - VP1)=0
P1-pot at showdown

Because the alternative is check-folding. In that case we do not lose or gain any more chips.

I noticed this on the graph.

It says that a pot sized bet with 33% equity breaks even by itself with no necesity of fold equity. Doesn't this contradicts the conventional notion that, to break aeven, a bet has to have at least 50% when called?

I honestly don't get the graph.. Can someone please explain.

Edit: Correct me if I'm wrong, if I bet 1/2 pot and I have 25% PE, I don't need any FE to breakeven?

correct imho

You have 25% equity, and you contribute 25% to the final pot (if called), so you break even.

The pot is $10 on the river. You bet $10 and villain calls. Final pot is $30, which you'll win 1/3 of the time. So on average, each time you make this river bet and villain calls, you win $10, which is exactly what you bet. Thus, that particular bet is break even if villain calls 100% of the time.

On the other hand, if this is a heads up pot, you're losing $5 every time you play a hand that ends this way, since villain wins $15 from you 2/3rds of the time and only loses $15 to you 1/3rd of the time. So to have break even EV for the whole hand, yes, you need 50% equity to bet the pot on the river, assuming that villain always calls.

bump to prevent COTW from being archived