PokerStars - $0.02 NL FAST (6 max) - Holdem - 6 players
Hand converted by PokerTracker 4

BTN: 208 BB (VPIP: 19.88, PFR: 18.13, 3Bet Preflop: 9.52, Hands: 348)
SB: 100 BB (VPIP: 13.00, PFR: 10.50, 3Bet Preflop: 1.25, Hands: 206)
BB: 128.5 BB (VPIP: 28.74, PFR: 18.39, 3Bet Preflop: 10.81, Hands: 90)
UTG: 124 BB (VPIP: 13.33, PFR: 13.33, 3Bet Preflop: 20.00, Hands: 16)
Hero (MP): 107 BB
CO: 106.5 BB

SB posts SB 0.5 BB, BB posts BB 1 BB

Pre Flop: (pot: 1.5 BB) Hero has A Q

fold, Hero raises to 2 BB, CO calls 2 BB, fold, fold, fold

Flop: (5.5 BB, 2 players) 6 A 5
Hero bets 3 BB, CO calls 3 BB

Turn: (11.5 BB, 2 players) J
Hero bets 7 BB, CO calls 7 BB

River: (25.5 BB, 2 players) 2
Hero bets 16 BB, CO raises to 32 BB, Hero ??

not a hand you want to 3barrel

You need to be ahead of >50% of Villains calling range to value bet profitably. I really don't think that you are otr, unless he is a fish/station. But readless I think u can x river. Honestly I'm not sure you're ahead of his turn calling range either...most people would fold any pp below TT here.

And A3,4,7,8,9,T? Would they fold those?

And your ">50%" statement isn't exactly true.

Do you think he calls pre with all of those? I mean some people do, but readless vs a greater than full stack player you can't say he does in a vacuum. Because that means you assume he's a fish when the only evidence you have says it's likely the opposite.

regs normally don't call these preflop co vs mp.

Why isn't my ">50%" statement true ?

You have seen regs on nl2 streets /nl 5 streets? there are only bad players, and players who are learning (me included-but im no reg:just a learning fish). To say there a regs on nl2-would be a statement that somebody plays it for a living. Though i saw on good old days that there was nl5 "reggish" who played it for a living as he had over 2million hands on PTR in nl5.

Yeah "Blackrain79" probably. On his website theres some pretty helpful articles imo. Bought his book "Microstakes Playbook" just yesterday actually, liking it so far.

That statement is very true.
It's actually a basic poker concept.

A value bet is when we make money because villain is calling with a worse hand.

If villain has more than 50% of hands that beat us when villain is calling, we're making a -EV value bet.

This only applies to value bets though and can be complicated by draws.

I can theorotize over this. But i think why this statement is a little bit false: do we categorize 6x,5x, Ax as villains valuerange or bluffcathing range). Villains value range pretty much crushes us.And villains callingrange&and valuerange arent the same thing.

It's purely when we bet for value.
It doesn't have to do anything with villain betting or raising. It's just about our bet on the river.
It doesn't matter what villains calling range is, it's a pure theoretical statement that is at the base of a value bet.

If you're betting for value and villain has more than 50% of hands in his calling range then we're making a -EV value bet.

There are plenty of other types of bets, this is purely when betting for value.

Semi-bluffs & bluffs are something different.
Equity protection bets are something different.


Example:

We're on the river and we are first to act.
We bet $100 purely for value (pot size doesn't even matter)

Since it's a value bet, we want villain to call, so assume villain is calling 100% of the time here. (Which is almost never the case, but that doesn't matter for this theory)

When villain calls, villain wins 51% of the time.
We are now losing $1 every time we make this value bet.
Our value bet is now -EV

Repeat 1000 times and we're down $1000

So we need villain to call with a losing hand more than 50% of the time to make a profitable value bet.

I would be sceptical towards stuff like bpc/blackrain.-basically everything that remotely advertises themself as "become a crusher in no time, with that book of mine"50 ways to kill fish in a month"-style

Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk

You're wrong and your statement later about it not applying to draws doesn't matter because we're talking about a river bet here. You're correct in the math of it (I assume as I didn't read that post) but you're incorrect on how to apply it in a real life situation.

fixed.

If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, then it prob a ponzi.

I'm very interested in how I should apply this then.

I didn't really follow this thread so not entirely sure if it applies to this hand.

But it seems correct to me that if we're going to value bet that we need to be ahaid of more than 50% of villains calling range?

I think in real life we think : our bet should work X amount of times(then there is some math like we bet Y amount and it has to work Z amount-im just on the learning curve dont grasp everything perfectly yet) to be profitable but not how many % we are ahead of smth

Oh I didn't expect to spark a discussion with that ">50%" statement. I'm not sure I understand at all why it's wrong... If a bet is purely 100% for value and nothing else, then don't we need to win the hand at least 50% of the times we get called ? Otherwise the EV of value betting is lower than the EV of checking.

The only way I see it not being accurate is because it doesn't take into account any other possible outcomes (like how often we get raised and have to fold, then we'd need to be ahead more than 50% to make up for the times we get raised/ or whether V will make more mistakes if we x to him). But I was under the impression that it's a pretty good general guideline, and a MINIMUM of how often we need to win the hand...

Also I used "reg" simply to describe someone that plays at 2NL regularly, no matter whether they're good at it or not.

100% is a rare breed in nlhe

Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk

This is just wrong. "Reg" doesn't equal "pro". Reg just means a player who plays reggish ranges and lines. The limits are largely irrelevant, and whether it's done as the sole source of income is irrelevant.

That makes more sense indeed.

Um they don't call perfectly playable hands ip against a 2bb raise? I am referring to suited hands.

Yeah, you're right, I failed to consider that it's a small open raise, so they might cold call more than usual.

But aren't LP players more likely to sqz vs small open size ? BTN appears fairly aggro PF. Though I guess many players wouldn't consider this anyways.