|
|
 Originally Posted by ProZachNation
I very seldom(if ever) bet more than pot on the turn, in general can that by itself be a leak?
I'm generally a 2/3 pot guy on the turn myself, but that varies at times, and I'm trying to change it up even more. I just re-read Sklansky's no limit book and it expanded my thinking on bet-sizing in general. The main thing when picking a bet size is trying to keep in mind what you are trying to accomplish and who your opponent is. This hand here, you really have a few goals on the turn (if you choose to bet):
1. Win the pot now if possible.
2. Build the pot so that if he calls, and you hit, you can get him to call a larger amount on the river (and win more out of the pot in total).
3. Set your own price for your draw, so you don't have to fold to a more aggressive bet if you check. This is a sort of blocking bet.
1 is always a good result, and with just one card to come it is a more important goal than it was on the flop, since you don't have anything and your odds of making a hand are diminishing. 2 is a fine concept in general although I think it takes a backseat to 1 most of the time on the turn (pot-building means more on the flop, and against more than one opponent). 3 is entirely opponent-based; this guy probably wasn't going to test you with a big bet there, so this point becomes unimportant.
So here, what's going on? You have a loose-passive opponent who probably has a little something that's not a draw, which means he's probably inclined to look you up unless you really bet hard. That also means if you hit, you should get paid reasonably well. He's not aggressive enough, most likely, that checking the turn will result in an uncallable bet from him. Also, he's short-stacked; he only has 4.00 left after the preflop and flop action. The pot is now .90. So you can calculate roughly a few different options:
- A pot-sized or slightly larger bet (I went with 1.00 just because it's basically pot-sized, and the larger figure has a better chance to fold him out)
- The mid-sized bet you did make, .60
- A smaller blocking/pot-building bet of .40
- A check
All of the following is speculative, but I'm going to make guesses for the sake of estimating the outcome.
So what is your EV?
- Pot sized bet: 50% of the time he folds and you win .90. 50% of the time he calls. On the river let's assume you will check/fold if you miss, go all in when you hit (the pot will now be 2.90 and he'll only have 3.00 left, so this is fine). And let's say he calls your all in 1/2 of the time (maybe over-generous, but short stacks do love to call after they've called twice already). Your expectation is: (.5 x .90) + (.5 x .17 x .5 x 4.90) + (.5 x .17 x .5 x 1.90) + (.5 x .83 x -1.00) = .32
- Mid sized bet: 30% of the time he folds and you win .90. 70% of the time he calls. On the river you check/fold if you miss, bet 2/3 pot when you hit (the pot will now be 2.10 and you'll bet 1.40). He calls this 2/3 of the time, folds the rest. Your expectation is: (.3 x .90) + (.7 x .17 x .66 x 2.90) + (.7 x .17 x .33 x 1.50) + (.7 x .83 x -.60) = .21
- Small bet: 20% of the time he folds and you win .90. 80% of the time he calls. On the river you check/fold if you miss, bet 3/4 pot when you hit (the pot will now be 1.70 and you'll bet 1.30 - adjusted upward from the previous river example since the pot is smaller and the bet is more likely to be called though it represents a larger % of the pot). He calls this 3/4 of the time again and folds the rest. Your expectation is: (.2 x .90) + (.8 x .17 x .75 x 2.60) + (.8 x .17 x .25 x 1.30) + (.8 x .83 x -.40) = .22
- Check: he checks also 1/2 the time, bets a larger amount that you fold to 1/4, and bets 1/2 pot (which you call) the other 1/4. If you hit on the river when the pot is .90, you bet .70, which he calls 3/4 of the time and folds the rest. If you hit on the river when the pot is 1.80, you bet 1.40, which he calls 2/3 of the time and folds the rest. If you miss you check/fold. Your expectation is: (.5 x .17 x .75 x 1.60) + (.5 x .17 x .25 x .90) + (.25 x .17 x .66 x 2.75) + (.25 x .17 x .33 x 1.35) + (.25 x .83 x -.45) = .13
A lot of assumptions are riddled throughout here, which you can question and will change the calculations significantly in some places. Those are just my general estimates based on playing with loose/passives. You can see the big bet works out to be best because you win the pot more often up front, and when he calls and you hit you tend to make more money (though he calls your bigger river bet less often); these things more than offset the fact that fairly regularly you lose the 1.00. The mid-sized bet is still profitable but clearly less so. The smaller bet works out to be about the same as your mid-sized one, and I think this strategy suffers against this particular opponent because he's passive - it builds the pot but it rarely blocks him from making a bigger bet that you can't call, which is one of the main aims of this type of bet. So it's fine, but maybe better against a less weak/passive player, or against 2+ opponents. The check is the least profitable - you win small pots sometimes, win mid-sized pots rarely, lose another small bet sometimes, and fold your losing hand for free pretty often. But obviously it carries with it a lot less variance.
(I ignored the possibility here of him donking in his whole stack on the turn - as a 2-bet - 0r on the river when you hit. It simplifies things, and goes with my general assumption that he's passive. But if he's somewhat likely to get a case of the fuckits and play it that way, we can adjust all of these different scenarios accordingly.)
|
I suck at playing draws
, T
.
, A
(3 players)
Reply With Quote
I wonder tho, if you have 0 fold equity on turn, and only 8 outs to make your hand a winning hand. How much do you need your opponent to call of here on river every single time for it to be profitable..
