You need to be logged in to your Sky Poker account above to post discussions and comments.
You might need to refresh your page afterwards.
Sky Poker forums will be temporarily unavailable from 11pm Wednesday July 25th.
Sky Poker Forums is upgrading its look! Stay tuned for the big reveal!
Adding extra bet early for value/info
I've commented in a few posts lately that I would always lean towards an extra bet on the flop re raise/3bet for value/increased information, when you potentially hold some doubt in the strength of your hand.
I've gone into detail in those threads why I adopt this approach, but will flesh it out again here if anyone asks.
Most of you seem fully against this approach, I dont fully understand why? I am mainly talking about being sat relatively deep as a rule.
I've gone into detail in those threads why I adopt this approach, but will flesh it out again here if anyone asks.
Most of you seem fully against this approach, I dont fully understand why? I am mainly talking about being sat relatively deep as a rule.
Comments
I didnt really want to hinge it on a specific hand, as It is hand/player dependant as you say.
For me it just comes down to this. If I'm going to be calling Opponents bet, semi strong or with draw, I dont really like where it leaves me at turn. Just as a pure money saver, if I think I'm likely to continue in the hand at the turn, going to river, I want to be in control. The raise gives you that. Or you get played back at potentially, defining ranges and intentions.
Equally I dont use it often against somebody who I may find unpredictable. As the extra bet inflates pot causing further streets to be pricier. However taking the inititive may get you to the river free when drawing.
If I think I have showdown value, its unwise to inflate pot. But am not happy flatting flop, being laft calling down two streets with no additional info. If you are behind the early extra bet, opponents reaction to it, will let you know in the cheapest way.
when you end up raising cbets with TPGK etc, it is very unlikely that worse hands will call, and also very unlikely that better hands will fold. so you end up in a really weird spot where you are turning a strong hand into a bluff but nothing better is actually going to fold. its massively -ev.
I dont want to be accused of not listening by certain quaters, I'm simply asking youR POV on a different slant on it.
Overall I play with people who play a pretty weak standard. Countless times, weekly, as tight as my image is (and it truly is - I DO NOT KNOW HOW I GET PAID-) I can open TPTK get jammed on by TP inferior kicker. I can re raise top TPTK, still get 3 bet all in by TPWK.
So my approach is slightly more tuned to playing these people who arent really processing information, seeing the strength of others hands/actions/image.
Brief example last night. Playing 50p/£1, raise 9's utg. Flop comes A92, I open, get jammed on called twice prior to getting back to me. I flat, as one opponent still has 150BB's. Turn A, Make 9's full. I check as know he bets, puts his 150bbs in with Q9 off. I take 420BB pot, rakeless.
My opponents can literally have any 2 cards. I'm not playing against solid thinking players in the main. Its not the same standard that say you would play, but i did alot of work finding these games.
Have gone off trail slightly so getting back. Against the few players who do think, they know a 3 bet from myself means I have a hand. So I'm only looking to be played back at again if they really have something. Its a cheap early warning system. If a bet I have made has been raised, pushing back is cheaper than calling to showdown, as they could literally be holding any two.
So for the games I play it does serve me very well. But with a higher standard of play, these transparent moves would become moot fairly quickly i guess. Its just these guys are so unpredictable, just often shooting at the moon, that all the info that can be gleamed early is hugely valueable. But it also adds huge value, as they become potstuck incredibly easy.
In your post above you are talking about valuebetting so its fine. Doing it for info is bad
Its just when I've opened or re raised then still get bet into over streets, I have to really be wondering if I'm on the receiving end of value city. I'm not bigging myself up or anything of the sort, but the tables I sit at I am one of the most successfull players @ 50/1 1/2 2/4. Particularly the first two. I'm just presenting a factual statement nothing more (I openly state I suck online cash), am not going on an ego trip.
In all likelyhood I'm getting to showdown by far having the best hand in the above mentioned issue. But they have a habit of hugely open shoving, leaving me clueless to where I am without the early extra bet. I guess my preffered strategy is specific to these games..?
I dont think I could be more open and transparent in my post yet you think coming out with jibberish like that is cool?
I'll tell you what I'll do then bud. I'll stop playing at these games and find new ones where people play well, that seems sensible.....
If you go back and look, you'll actually see that at these games I often say I dont play exceptionally well, or win because I'm great. I've said MANY times I make money because I actively choose to play against people who are worse than me. To do anything else is just unwise.
Good luck to you and your nan bud.
"If you go back and look, you'll actually see that at these games I often say I dont play exceptionally well, or win because I'm great. I've said MANY times I make money because I actively choose to play against people who are worse than me. To do anything else is just unwise."
It seems very important to you that I'm not a good player bud. Your assumptions and childish outlook just arent important to me. Maybe I'm awful, but if thats so, they are considorably worse. Which is all that really counts.
Thing about poker is that it is open to interpretation in its approach and understanding. Where many may advocate a certain line it doesnt make it correct, I am aware that my approach is out of alignment with many. you may perceive that as bad, which is your choice. However it doesnt make it so.
Not trying to give you grief but you do come off badly on here at times. He's only 2/3's as bad as this in the real world..ish.
Betting for value is good, if that gains you info great
Betting specifically to gain info is bad
Info is a byproduct of betting not the reason u bet
I wrote a long post with some advice but it disappeared might get back to it again. The jist of it was your thinking on hands seems very muddled, just think about why you bet/raise/call/fold in terms of gaining value, bluffing,+EV spots and worry less about fancy plays and "control" whatever that is
Just want to explain my control issue. My bet sizing and descision making process run in tandem with control, more than EV+. Being a live player I dont see the same volume of hands that you online guys do, so EV+ doesnt play such a huge role. Dont get me wrong, still imprtant role, but less focussed.
I had huge downswings online in recent years which has lead my game to a cautious path, I dont like playing allin pots, or give up to much equity marginally. The flow of my game is centred around controlling the action.
If I cant control it, I'm less likely to get strongly involved. Dont get me wrong, I have the moves, just keep them sheathed these days mostly, given the people I play.
I think what I was asking was how people value the bet on info, which you guys answered fully. I think you and LOL are right overall. Its a useful tool in those specific games, but only because the majority play so bad. Obviously I adapt to better game though.
Betting for info is not good in your games, its good because when you do it there is value in your bets, they still call with worse. I assume by control you mean the betting lead? Its nice to have betting lead but you dont want to be sacrificing EV for it
Give an example where you bet for info and why you think its good and what exact info you gained
Yeah I have to say that betting for info or probe bets are very prone to be being moved on and also you loose so much money when the answer you get is hi i have a hand. Most of the time your loosing, and I have only recently got my head around this as betting and aggression is good but you end up spewy so much money.
I would only say this if you do find yourself in this spot and find you need info then ensure your betting patterns are the same.
Reasons NOT to put that 'extra bet' in
1) forcing worse hands to fold, and only better ones to call.
2) Re-open the action to let draws, bluff monkeys push you off the hand.
3) increasing variance, which imo, is never a good thing.
4) if out of position, can lead to more awkward spots on later streets, with a bloated pot.
5) You can sometimes even end up out-levelling, out-thinking, and value towning yourself when you make these bets.
All imo ofc, and thus why poker is such a beautiful game, because there would be no argument/case here if amybr didn't have at least some good points for putting the 'extra bet' in.
Cheers,
Carlos Smitalos
The bet for info is more applicable when there are three or four players left to act behind, when stacked. But I think their right overall and am trying to steer myself away from it mostly.
The only exceptions I'd make are if there are many players left to act, also a situation like the one I'm about to set out:
Playing 1$/2$ 6 max on FT. I have big stack, villain has big stack. Villain has moves, but no real game. He makes it $5.5 on button, SB calls, I find 79o in the BB and spew call (bad I know).
$16.5 pot A9Jr flop. SB leads for a weak $6, I call with a plan to take it away on turn, initial raiser also calls.
$32.5 pot A9J 7. Kind of feel it could be my gin card. SB checks, I check as i feel initial raise will bet. He opens for £22, SB calls, I make it $58 to go. BB pretty much insta jams on me for like $250 more. SB quickly calls. Im getting great odds to call but I really dont think he's 3 bet jamming the check raise with 1pr. So squeeze out a fold with the added insurance that I'm seeing both hands.
Initial raiser flips A9 for better 2pr, SB holding AQ. So this could be an example, but in reality it is more reacting to the betting dynamic of action.
But without raising the turn, I go to the river pretty much having to call a huge value bet blind. The raise for info adds an extra layer to the dynamic, allowing me to get away from the hand cheaper.
But this should be the minority, rather than the majority. In that I fully agree.
EDIT: But in essence again your right, at turn I bet for value against a perceived rannge of AQAK, it only stops being for value when played back at and being forced to re-assess.