I mustn't have made myself clear. I'm only advocating betting when you think your hand has SD value.

must call for sure. He is shoving there with Ax alot of the time, cause he will never put you on 56s there.

Not necessarily.
If you're ahead, you fold out his equity in the entire pot.
If he's ahead, you only lose his equity in the bet you've made.

King Yao is basically irrelevant for no limit. And I don't know that much about limit, but ranges in NL need to be polarised much more so than in LHE.

And check back when you have air? Lol. Backward.

Betting here just gets you valuetowned. Bet if you:

a) you have over 50% equity vs his continue range(value)
b) he will fold often enough better hand(bluff)
c) combination of the above 2.

You are playing scared money if you are betting to get rid of 2-4 outers.

Consider what that bet size is likely to be in NL relative to the size of the pot.

1) you are right and I actually added this to a previous post probably while you were righting yours.
Edit: Having thought about it more, we're going to find it very difficult to call an appropriately sized bluff on the river. Almost every card in the deck is a scare card.
2) Right again. I did mention this earlier when I said
"It probably does make up some value in the 4% of the time Villain makes a pair that completes our flush and calls a river bet."
3) That is thin at best.

Yes. I'm still adjusting to this from limit.

But don't forget it's not that cut and dry. If you're claiming the loss in value for when Villain x/c's with better hands, you also have to add value to Hero's bet for when Villain calls with a worse hand.

I mean, if you fold river after making it there the way you did then you should probably snap quit for the rest of the day.

Preflop is too loose, there is no need to put money in the pot in a spot like this when you don't have to unless you had a very good reason. Work out a solid calling range in these positions and stick to it unless there is a reason not to, especially when you are new to the limit.

Turn I agree with checking too. It is nice to be able to show up with some nutted hands otr (minor consideration) but mainly we won't get value from anything, possibly Ax but unlikely, and we probably don't need to turn this into a bluff. I think if you are betting turn it should be bigger and when you get called then you need to bet fairly big on the river also and hope villain folds. As played once you get raised ott the rest is fine.

This is either some joke or some basic principle that I am completely oblivious to.

WhyTF wouldn't I take my free card?


This does not address or account for the equity gained when he folds a worse hand with outs.

Good advice in this thread. Checking turn is superior.

sent from zfzcw

1. Maybe this is the case for limit, but in NL you have fold equity + pot equity. when he folds that's good for you and when he calls it's OK because our implied odds go up. You don't have the same implied odds at limit so maybe it's different there but in NL it makes much more sense to bluff 5 high and check back a pair of 5's.

2. The equity gained when he folds a worse hand with outs is very small. On the flop it's far bigger so it's often OK to bet for 'protection' in spots where our hand does badly against his folding range. On the turn our hand does much better against his folding range as his equity is much lower.

It should be clear that betting the turn in this spot 100% is exploitable. In this spot as villain I have a check-calling range which is wide enough to make you betting with your weak pair bad especially since when I do fold, I am folding low equity hands. I notice a lot of people are betting the turn in this spot 100% and I make a note of it, but I think it's a leak that not many people address as often people's checking range on the turn is so weak that you get enough folds for it to not cost you much money. This does not however make betting correct.

What worse hands? A highs? Apart from A high flush draws he doesn't call with A high and those are more likely to bet turn than check call anyway. And while that's not too bad situation for you it does put you into ugly spot when you both hit the flush.

More than accounted for by you getting valuetowned too often. You get zero value from your bet and get valuetowned against better hands.

You are playing scared if you are so affraid of 2-4 outers that you feel compelled to make -ev bet just to ensure you don't get sucked out rarely.

If he luckboxes big deal. Small pot when you have small hand. No big deal. It's much worse valuetowning yourself. You are basically doing what your opponent _wants_ you to do.

You have a low pair. Your opponent checks the turn and turns his hand up and shows you two over cards to your pair. He tells you he's given up on the hand and you know he will fold to any bet and because you know his cards, he will never bluff the river.
Of course you ****ing bet. It's not because you're betting scared, it's because betting is the +ev thing to do.
Gifting him his 13.6% equity in the pot, by checking, is ******ed.

Now, let's imagine that villain doesn't show you his cards, but based on his play, you are 90% sure he has overs and will fold to a bet. The other 10% of the time, he calls with a better hand. If you bet, 90% of the time, you get him to fold his 13.6% equity in the pot.
So 90% of the time, you gain 13.6% of the pot. 10% of the time, you get called by a better hand but you still likely have outs against villains better hand (especially when checked to)

So the ev of betting is 90%*13.6%*pot - 10%*bet*villains equity when he calls.
Let's assume hero has just 5 outs when called, villains better hand equity is 89%.
.9*.136*pot - .1*.89*bet or .1224*pot - .089*bet
So, if your bet is pot sized and the pot is 10bb.
.1224*10 - .089*10 = +.334bb = you should bet the turn.

But what if you could bet just half the pot to have villain fold?
.1224*10 - .089*5 = +.779bb

But what if the pot was bigger?
.1224*50 - .089*25 = +3.895bb

Now, lets think about a situation where hero has more than 5 outs, like the hand in the op. Hero has 11 outs against even a set here. So villains equity in the turn bet drops to 75%.
.1224*50 - .075*25 = 4.245bb

In this last example, hero can make a 80bb sized bet and still have the bet turn a profit.
Now, imagine how many situations where a turn bet of that size could actually fold better hands. In this case, if he folds 5% of his better hands:
.05*.5*50 + .1224*50 - .025*80 = + 5.37bb
So, even more profitable than just making the 1/2 pot bet. A huge factor to consider, as you are gaining a major portion to the pot when he folds better hands. Because not only are you gaining massively from the hands he's folding but it means you have less turn bets called as well, making the benefit exponential. In this instance, the break even point for the turn bet size isnt reached until 294bb.

All these principles are the same for limit as no limit. These turn bets in limit are just so much easier to make because your bet size is so much smaller, relative to pot size but the principle remains the same, the equation is just a little different.

It was here, where I started listing the other factors to consider, that I had an epiphany and discovered the biggest difference between limit and no limit, and as a result the flaw in my thinking.

And it has to do with small % events and how bet sizing dramatically changes their impact.
The two of these small % events that are most relevant here are -
The chance of a x/r and
The chance villain bluffs the river.

In limit, you can easily disregard these concerns without much impact. A x/r and a river bluff are only ever going to cost or catch a bet size of 1bb.
In no limit, these two actions can cost or make 100s of bb.

In the imaginary hand above, even a 5% chance villain will make river bluff -
90% he holds nothing x 86% of the time a blank river falls x 5% chance he bluffs x bluff size
.9*.05*.86*bet size
So if his bluff bet is 1/2 pot, then that can cause almost 1bb swing in ev.
If you up his river bluff % to even 20%, it would be almost never be correct to bet the turn.

So with my new perspective, I can see how no limit players would instinctively say to check this turn.
However, the more passive an opponent becomes, and the more likely he is to fold a better hand, the more the turn bet is likely to be the most +ev move.

Hmmm. I don't think betting turn is that bad... See a lot of players at nl25 calling this turnbet with aj-ak kinda of hands...

Still a very nice hand to checkback turn with..

Yeah, problem is that if a player bet this turn he might bet too many turns when checked to. Probably therefore better to checkback this hand and instead bet floats. Which you also can bet river with depending on reads on villain...

Your problem, as it has been during this entire tiresome thread, is you are not really considering either our range or villains at all

You're right. I'm ready. School me.

I dont know the result.. but I am 100& sure be has the nuts and you lost.. othervise you would not have posted this hand

Sent from my HTC One mini using 2+2 Forums

check back and bluff catch ainec

assuming you mean he didnt actually table his cards but you know what he has and he doesn't know that you know (otherwise u know...he'll never bluff)

he only has 12% equity with 2 overs, not worth turning your hand into a bluff.

The part about cheap showdown is bs. It doesn't matter if we bet turn, check river or check turn, can river (same money invested).

+ he might donk when you bet turn (there hoes your free showdown) and he might bluf with hands (when we check ott) he would have fold vs turnbet.

He has less since we will win on spades. So 8-10%

It's not. That's exactly the point.

If you bet 10bb on the turn, and happen to be behind, your investment is less because of your outs. You're out's equity reduces the cost of the investment. eg. if you have 10% equity when behind, your investment is 9bb.

If you call the 10bb on the river, you pay the full 10bb, when behind.

9<10 = cheap showdown.

As discussed, more a limit concept but valuable to know in NL against passives who will never bluff river.

When you call flop do you always have 65s? When he checks turn does he always have KQ?