Betting "to see where you're at" is NOT a good rea

[taipan168]

I want to post this in the Beginner's Circle, but I thought I'd get some feedback here first before giving incorrect advice!

Recently I've seen a number of posts where people have commented on a hand saying that Hero should "bet to see where you're at". The purpose of this post is to illustrate that this is NOT a good reason to bet.

Note that I am not a cash game player so this post may not apply to cash games (cash game players please comment!).

As far as I can see it, there are three reasons to bet (which are not mutually exclusive):

1. To get more money in the pot when your hand is likely to be better than your opponent's (value betting)
2. Because you think your opponent is likely to fold if you bet (bluffing)
3. To give your opponent incorrect odds to call and chase a draw that will improve his/her hand to beat yours (pricing a draw out/protecting your hand)

Betting "to see where you're at" is not a good reason to bet because most often the information that you receive in return for your bet will not be worth more than the cost of the bet. Put another way, the information you will get is often not reliable enough to help you make better decisions later in the hand.

I will try to illustrate with a couple of examples, apologies to the original posters of these hands:

Hand 1

Full Tilt Poker No-Limit Hold'em Tourney, Big Blind is t50 (8 handed)

SB (t1295)
BB (t2625)
UTG (t2380)
UTG+1 (t1455)
MP1 (t1630)
MP2 (t1320)
CO (t1318)
Hero (t1477)

Preflop: Hero is Button with K, K.
5 folds, Hero raises to t150, 1 fold, BB calls t100.

Flop: (t325) 2, Q, A (2 players)
BB checks, Hero ??

Leaving aside the correct decision on this hand, let's examine the three reasons to bet here.

1. Value betting: Opp shows you QJo face up. If you bet here, you are getting more money in the pot with the best hand.
2. Bluffing: Opp shows you A3o face up. If you bet here, you are hoping that opp will fold because he will worry that his top pair is outkicked or that you have two pair or a set.
3. Protecting your hand: Opp shows you T 9 face up. If you bet here, you are trying to give opp incorrect odds to chase his flush.

Now, assume that you don't see opp's cards. If you bet, what are the likely outcomes?
- Opp folds: Hooray, you won the pot. We don't know whether opp had a better or worse hand than us.
- Opp raises: Damn, we have to fold here. Again, we don't know whether opp had a better or worse hand than us. There is some chance opp is picking off our continuation bet with a weaker hand (bluffing), but we can't take the chance that he does actually have Ax, a set or two pair.
- Opp calls: OK, what do we do now? Is opp slowplaying a monster hand like a set, is opp chasing a gutshot draw with KT, is opp chasing a flush draw with two hearts, is opp calling with a hand that we beat?

In the case where opp calls, the information we received is NO good to make a decision on later streets. Are we ahead or behind? Where are we at exactly?

Hand 2

Poker Stars No Limit Holdem Tournament
Blinds: t15/t30
8 players

UTG: t2260
HERO: t1350
MP1: t1255
MP2: t1050
CO: t1495
Button: t1995
SB: t1735
BB: t2360

Pre-flop: (8 players) HERO is UTG+1 with A A
UTG folds, HERO raises to t120, 5 folds, BB calls t90.

Flop: T J J (t255, 2 players)
BB checks, HERO bets t180, BB calls t180.

Turn: T (t615, 2 players)
BB checks, HERO ????

In this case, once again, betting to "see where you're at" is no good. Say you bet around 1/2 pot or 300 and opp calls.
- Opp could be calling with something that you're way ahead of such as a lower pocket pair like 99 or a flush draw.
- Opp could be slowplaying a full house or quads meaning you're either way behind or drawing dead.

So where are you at exactly? This is why the correct move on the turn is to check behind and see what opp does on the river. If he checks, we probably check behind. If he bets small, we call because of pot odds. If he bets big, we fold. We can gain more information more cheaply by checking behind on the turn and seeing what opp does on the river than by betting the turn. Betting the turn does NOT give us the information we need to make a better decision on the river.

[TLR]

I think 'betting to see where you are at' is not an invalid reason to bet, since it often can get you some information cheaply which may be very costly in later street.

Example: You are in the SB with JJ, blinds are 25/50 everyone has 1500, CO raises to 150.

Obviously you are going to fold JJ here so your options are calling or raising.

I would argue then raising here is correct, although it does not fit any of your first 3 reasons.
It does serve two purposes, one is to knock off the BB, and the other is to try to figure out where you stand according to original raiser

[taipan168]

I think 'betting to see where you are at' is not an invalid reason to bet, since it often can get you some information cheaply which may be very costly in later street.

Example: You are in the SB with JJ, blinds are 25/50 everyone has 1500, CO raises to 150.

Obviously you are going to fold JJ here so your options are calling or raising.

I would argue then raising here is correct, although it does not fit any of your first 3 reasons.
It does serve two purposes, one is to knock off the BB, and the other is to try to figure out where you stand according to original raiser

I think preflop is a little different to postflop because there are no draws to protect against.

Anyway, say we re-raise to 400 or so, of your reasons above I agree with knocking off the BB, but again the problem is the information is not that reliable:
- If he shoves over (and is not a maniac) we can fold knowing that we are behind his range
- If he folds, great we won the pot without a fight, but we might have folded out a worse hand
- If he flat calls, where are we at? Is he slowplaying QQ+, is he trying to spike an A or K with AK, is he a total idiot calling with something like KT?

Arguably a better line than re-raising is to just call the raise, C-R all-in if we hit a set or undercard flop and c/f if overcards come (particularly A or K). We still lose to the same hands (QQ+) that we would lose against preflop but against hands like AK we give ourselves the chance to get away more cheaply and win their c-bet if overcards do not come.

Plus if opp has say TT or 99 and the flop comes say 862 then re-raising preflop might chase them out when they might go broke on the undercard flop.

[TLR]

If you check-raise flop and he has an overpair you lost your entire stack.

Nothing is certain in poker, but most players will rereraise your reraise with AA-QQ and will flat call or fold with lower PP or AQ, AK is kind of on the fence here but I think most players will call rather then reraise AK.
If villian just called my reraise I have no problem getting all my chips in on a low flop, but if I just call I have much more trouble playing the hand, especially since i am in position.

In your hands, hand1 is a bet in my opinion, you dont know where villian stands, but if he calls I am playing the hand much more carefully from now on, I assume he is either on an A or some kind of a draw, and depending on the turn card and his action I have a better idea on how to play.

Hand2 is a totally different example, since it is a very clear case of WA/WB, and both you and villian nows it.
With JJTT on board most people will not pay you with any low pair or draw since the chance since low PP has just been counterfeighted and a draw may be drawing dead, and even if he hits his draw he will not bet it because he does not know if is draw is any good, so the reasonable play here is to check behind turn and try to get to a cheap showdown

[FlyingSaucy]

To me the examples are irrelevant. The only reason why betting to "see where you are at" is a bad reason is because it takes responsibility off of you for making good reads and playing out the hand in a manner that maximizes value when you are ahead and minimizes losses when you are behind. It is a bad reason to bet because it is the wrong way of thinking about poker, period.

[TLR]

To me the examples are irrelevant. The only reason why betting to "see where you are at" is a bad reason is because it takes responsibility off of you for making good reads and playing out the hand in a manner that maximizes value when you are ahead and minimizes losses when you are behind. It is a bad reason to bet because it is the wrong way of thinking about poker, period.

Again I disagree, it is complinetary to reads, they idea of betting to define your hand is based on the concept that raising range is much wider then calling reraising/ reraising range

[Rondavu]

Betting is never a question, but always a statement of equity. Poker is a proactive game for those who beat it. We are not in the business of asking questions, because a large part of poker is lying on purpose.

You know what I do when someone bets to see where they're at? I raise them, and tell them where they're at. I make an equity statement. If they don't believe me, and call. I push the next street to confirm it.

[drmcboy]

I think you're a little overboard with the title. You can get lots of info when you bet, but that doesn't mean you can always 'bet to see where you are at'. Which I think is the point you want to make.

Top of my head - you out of the BB against a limper + the SB or so and the flop is JJ7r and you have 97. If you check, you have to guess coming back. If you lead out, you can pretty safely shut down even if (maybe especially if) you just get called and it's an easy fold if you get raised.

I think the biggest reason you don't like the concept is that in SNGs very often you don't have enough chips to bet/fold with a hand.

[Rondavu]

Top of my head - you out of the BB against a limper + the SB or so and the flop is JJ7r and you have 97. If you check, you have to guess coming back. If you lead out, you can pretty safely shut down even if (maybe especially if) you just get called and it's an easy fold if you get raised.

Isn't that betting to protect a hand that's likely ahead, and then check folding a hand that's now likely behind? In contrast, you wouldn't bet that exact hand if 5 other people were left to act behind you. In that spot you would just check fold.

You can't wonder where you're exactly at and ask questions. You have to know where you're likely at, and make statements.

[GatorJH]

Obviously you are going to fold JJ here so your options are calling or raising.

I would argue then raising here is correct, although it does not fit any of your first 3 reasons.
It does serve two purposes, one is to knock off the BB, and the other is to try to figure out where you stand according to original raiser

Actually, IMO, your re-raise here is serving two of the purposes. First you are giving the BB incorrect odds to see a flop unless he has a really big hand and secondly you are getting more money in the pot because there are only 3 hands where you are behind right now, so at this point you feel like your JJ is a better hand than the original raisers hand of Ax, pp smaller than your J's, etc.

Tai, I think you are on the right track here but I think you need to expand on how those three reasons for betting get misconstrued into "betting to see where I am in the hand" and try to get people thinking along the line of "every bet gives you more information that you didn't have before"

For example, in TLR's example let's say you re-raise with your JJ, the BB folds (because he didn't have the odds to see a flop with his crap hand) and the original raiser pushes over your re-raise. Now you have more information to use to make the correct move here. The things that we typically consider here are:

1) the player. Do we have enough history to know if he is a LAGGY who would make this move with a weak hand? Is he a nit who would only push here with a monster hand? Do we not know enough about him to answer either of the other two questions? If this answer is no we don't, then you are limited to other factors to make your decision.

2) The stakes - If this is a lower buy in that raises our confidence that our J's are still the best hand or are we at higher stakes where people generally don't push without solid holdings (or other factors that go beyond beginner poker)?

3) pot odds - Is the push over our raise small enough that we are getting the correct odds to continue playing this hand even if we now feel that we are currently behind in the hand.

There may be others there, but the point is that your original raise wasn't to "see where you are", but was because you thought you had the best hand at that point and wanted to get more money in the pot (reason #1). His push now gives you more information to use to decide if you still believe that you have the right hand and how to proceed from here.

All, another thing to keep in mind when replying to this post is that Tai wants to post this in the "BEGINNER" forum and what he is trying to accomplish (I think) is to get peopel to understand what they are REALLY doing when they think they are "betting for information".

[drmcboy]

isn't that betting to protect a hand that's likely ahead, and then check folding a hand that's now likely behind?

yes - we found out where we were at

[Rondavu]

isn't that betting to protect a hand that's likely ahead, and then check folding a hand that's now likely behind?

yes - we found out where we were at

Yes, but we did not bet for that reason. It was a consequence to a good decision for the right reason, which is what poster is illustrating. Bet for the right reasons.

I know it all sounds semantical, but new players need to know they are betting for value, to protect, and then changing that read. They need to be held accountable for thinking.

[GatorJH]

isn't that betting to protect a hand that's likely ahead, and then check folding a hand that's now likely behind?

yes - we found out where we were at

but you didn't bet to "find out where you were"; you bet because you felt like, at that point, you had the best hand.

[FlyingSaucy]

You can't wonder where you're exactly at and ask questions. You have to know where you're likely at, and make statements.

BOOM
This is the point I was trying to make only much more direct. It's a matter of your poker world view.

[FlyingSaucy]

I think the biggest reason you don't like the concept is that in SNGs very often you don't have enough chips to bet/fold with a hand.

The thread is growing fast and thought this quote should not be lost in the shuffle also.

If in sngs you are regularly getting into marginal "I need to get a read" situations post flop that likely means one of two things. 1. It is mid/late game in the sng and you are spewing large portions of your stack. 2. It is early in the sng and you are not playing aggressively enough in position.

[gabe]

betting for info is fine when the info you gain saves you from making big -ev mistakes. but the -ev of betting for info has to be less than -ev of the mistake you might eventually make.

[Go_Indy]

I suppose if we are all mind readers, and know everything, and know how everyone will react around us....then yes...betting to see where you are at is a waste of money. However...

If you don't know what the other people have, and they are uncertain as to what you hold, then there is definitely some use as to betting to see where you are at.

If I bet, I might have many reasons to bet, and only I know why I bet what I did. If I make a bet to see where I am, and I get raised back becuase the opposing player knew I had no draw, didn't have a monster, whatever, just knew I was raising for information, then know what...I am flat out screwed regardless.

[Warpe]

older thread on subject:

http://www.flopturnriver.com/phpBB2/...at-t33488.html

[drmcboy]

betting for info is fine when the info you gain saves you from making big -ev mistakes. but the -ev of betting for info has to be less than -ev of the mistake you might eventually make.

This is what I was trying to say. In my example, you may end up calling 3 bets with your 7x on the JJ7 board where as you could have just bet/folded.

[GatorJH]

Tai (and all),
As I read through all of the replies it is quite apparent that we are getting caught up in semantics. What one person calls "betting to see where I am" another may call "bluffing at the pot" or "protecting my hand".

What is REALLY important here, IMO, is not what we call that bet, but the information that we get based on what happens afterward.

Maybe instead of focusing on "betting to see where you are is bad" the post should focus on "you have bet and now have more information - what now?". You could then break out the "I have bet for information" into the three betting categories (or even into the betting and raising categories from ToP) and discuss how to proceed based on what happens after your bet.

Thoughts?

[taipan168]

older thread on subject:

http://www.flopturnriver.com/phpBB2/...at-t33488.html

Bingo, Martin said it more concisely and better than I did. He captured what exactly what I wanted to say.

I guess the overarching point that I wanted to make was that whenever you bet you must know why you are betting but I'm sure there has already been a thread on this. You see this a lot at non-high stakes - players bet 1/2 pot on the flop, get called, bet like 1/6 pot on the turn, get called, check the river. The point I wanted to address was the one that FS made - that the information that you get by betting is very often not worth the cost of the bet. drmcboy also made a good point that stacks are too shallow in SNGs to be able to throw your chips around like this when the information that comes back is not likely to help you gain the lost EV of the bet (assuming that there is no other reason for betting).

[FlyingSaucy]

I dunno Gator, I think there's more going on here than just semantic differences. I agree with what you said though that information is the result of the action that is generated. We're all pretty clear on that. But the subject at hand is: what is the impetus behind the action at a poker table? It's definitely not information gathering. Some of us are talking about cause, and some are talking about effect. Information gathering happens before taking action.

What one person calls "betting to see where I am" another may call "bluffing at the pot" or "protecting my hand

The person who calls it "betting to see where I am" is betting without thinking about the value of their bet relative to the strength of their hand, whereas the bettor who bluffs at the pot or is protecting against draws knows exactly why he is betting and can size it appropriately. They are playing with the fundamental theorem of poker in mind. For anyone to say that they are betting for information is putting the cart before the horse.

[Go_Indy]

Flysaucy:
Sure...if I know exactly what the opponent has, then sure, I can bet depending on what I am trying to do. I can bluff the superior hand, I can try to protect my superior hand, whatever. However, it is often the case I don't know exactly what the opponent has. Coinciding with that, I don't know how strong my hand is to him.

So....often...I'll put forth a bet in order to see where I stand.

Now...I am getting the feeling some here think they have the ability to know instantly that the opponent is betting for information. If you actually know that the opponent is doing that...than you have no need to EVER bet for information...because you already know. Unfortunately, I am not personally clairvoyant, so I am actually in need of that information.

[bjsaust]

I'm one of the guys who will often recommend betting to see where you're at. I get your point about actually getting worthwhile information (and another point I make quite often is to have a plan behind whatever move you make). Generally I'll bring out the 'bet for information' advice when I see people who arent sure where they're at, so they c/c every street. They end up putting large amounts of their chips into the pot without any idea of where they are in the hand. I would much prefer a bet or a c/r early to establish that.

Now it could just as easily be argued in an SnG that often if you're not sure where you're at you should probably just fold, but sometimes I prefer a more aggressive line.

[FlyingSaucy]

Indy, it is very rare to ever know exactly what your opponents hand. Hence I use the word range several times in my post.

[FlyingSaucy]

or, maybe my post never made it.
anyway, cart before the horse.
now let's beat the horse

[bjsaust]

No, thats a great point FS, even if apparantly you didnt make it when you thought you did .

You can never know what your opp has (unless live he actually shows you his cards), however you can use ranges to work it out. What hands does he play PF like that? What hands does he play a flop like that? What does his line mean he likely has? You use this to work out his likely holdings, compare them to yours and make a decision. He could be holding an overpair or a set, but is he more likely to have TP with a worse kicker? Is it possible he has TP with a better kicker than yours? Is two pair within his range?