Value or Bluff raise
In applications of NLHE, the author consistently includes combo draws in the value part of raising range on the flop. This just seems wrong. He says that the required strength of a value raise should is around 90% equity in one chapter and then goes on to putting draws with equity barely close to 50% in the value raising range. For example, in one hand example about defending against a flop bet, with the flop being Kd9s7s, the author lists QJs and QTs as value raises when these two draws have equity < 50% here. Should I just ignore these parts and instead just include them in my bluff raises? Why is the author doing this?
3 Replies
It's entirely subjective. I also consider open enders/flush draws closer to value otf than bluffs. Equity isn't everything. There are situations where a flush draw can have higher EV than an overpair.
It's entirely subjective. I also consider open enders/flush draws closer to value otf than bluffs. Equity isn't everything. There are situations where a flush draw can have higher EV than an overpair.
I’m not sure it’s subjective so much as that the categories of bluff and value are really only distinct categories on the river. These categories are not the reasons we bet - we bet for one reason only - because betting increases our EV. Not being solvers, though, we lack the capacity to do the brute force calculations of EV in real-time so we look for simplifications. On the river betting increases our EV in two situations, either our opponent will fold a better hand - bluff, or he will call with a lesser one - value.
That simple situation no longer exists on other streets. If we bet our combo draw, we increase our EV, but some of that increase comes from lines where villain calls, we hit the draw and win a larger pot than we would have had we not bet. We also get some of that EV increase when villain folds and fails to realize his equity. Thus, our bet has characteristics of both a bluff and a value bet. The distinction between the two as separate concepts doesn’t really exist before the river. It’s more of a continuum or spectrum, with some bets gaining more EV with a villain folding and some gaining more from a call.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
we bet for one reason only - because betting increases our EV. If we bet our combo draw, we increase our EV, but some of that increase comes from lines where villain calls, we hit the draw and win a larger pot than we would have had we not bet. We also get some of that EV increase when villain folds and fails to realize his equity. Thus, our bet has characteristics of both a bl
Interesting
Going to have to give this more thought
Been trying to be more specific in my betting thought process.
