Value betting? Question...

[-J.]

Hello!

I have a question that I can't seem to answer on my own. I'm fairly new to poker so I apologize if I'm being retarded, but...

Okay, if there is 1,000 in the pot and my hand wins 20% of the time (1 in 5) then I'm supposed to make a bet that returns 120% (6 to 1) or higher, correct? And this is called "value betting," right? The logic behind this is that the more hands I play the more certain I am to recoup my losses and get ahead, yes?

Then what about the fact that the pot size changes? The amount you lose on the four loosing hands might easily exceed the amount you win on the winning hand. Instead of "lose 1, lose 1, lose 1, lose 1, gain 6" it will be more like "lose 50, lose 700, lose 255, lose 515, gain 650."

What the crap? This only seems to work if you make the same bet every single time you have those particular odds, with that particular pot size, on the river?

Can someone please explain this to me?

Thanks!

[xDiamond_CutteRx]

"Value betting" is a very vague term, but what you are describing doesn't really capture the general concept.

If you believe your hand is best and the value of your bet is derived from being called, that is value-betting.

If your hand may be good or isn't good now but may be on a future street, and thus some of your value is derived from forcing a fold and some is derived from being called, that is semi-bluffing.

If you know your hand is no good (most likely) if it is called, the value in your bet is derived from forcing a fold, and that is bluffing.

The logic behind this is that the more hands I play the more certain I am to recoup my losses and get ahead, yes?

No, that is not correct. That sounds more like a Martingale System, which is not a winning strategy. That is why this:

Then what about the fact that the pot size changes? The amount you lose on the four loosing hands might easily exceed the amount you win on the winning hand. Instead of "lose 1, lose 1, lose 1, lose 1, gain 6" it will be more like "lose 50, lose 700, lose 255, lose 515, gain 650."

doesn't make sense.

[Ciso_B]

Yeh what DC said ^^^

I don't have anything wise to add , just wanted to comment on what a sick avatar you got. WP!

[Kemics]

Quote:
The logic behind this is that the more hands I play the more certain I am to recoup my losses and get ahead, yes?

No, that is not correct. That sounds more like a Martingale System, which is not a winning strategy. That is why this:

inless he means, should you play lots of hands with a 55% to 45% edge etc because while you might lose in a single session, if you endlessly played the same odds you would be very wealthy in the long run. I.e be a casino.

[-J.]

I appreciate your answers, however, I'm still a bit confused. On this website, in the "Calculating Odds & Outs" section, is the following paragraph:

Pot odds are as easy as computing outs. You compare your outs or your chance of winning to the size of the pot. If your chance of winning is significantly better than the ratio of the pot size to a bet, then you have good pot odds. If it's lower, then you have bad pot odds. For example, say you are in a $5/$10 texas hold'em game with Jack-Ten facing one opponent on the turn. You have an outside straight draw with a board of 2-5-9-Q, and only the river card left to make it. Any 8 or any King will finish this straight for you, so you have 8 outs (four 8's and 4 K's left in the deck) and 46 unseen cards left. 8/46 is almost the same as a 1 in 6 chance of making it. Your sole opponent bets $10. You if you take a $10 bet you could win $200. $200/$10 is 20, so you stand to make 20x more if you call. 1/6 higher than 1/20, so pot odds say that calling wouldn't be a bad idea.

If I'm understanding what's been said so far, the above paragraph is bad advice because, as I previously mentioned, pot size changes render a disparity in gains and losses. So am I correct in assuming pot odds to be worthless in my decision making? It seems that it doesn't matter if I'm getting 20 to 1 on a 1 in 6 bet; what matters is if my cards will beat my opponents cards or if I can make them fold. To tell myself, "I have a good hand, but not the best, and I'm getting good odds, so I should make this bet" seems a bit delusional, doesn't it? It's assuming that in the future I'll make this same exact bet enough times to eventually win back all my losses, which is highly unlikely.

Bah! Like I said, I'm new and trying to figure out where to stand, how to move, and what to say. Thanks for your patience and assistance!

[xDiamond_CutteRx]

Pot odds apply more when CALLING a bet than when making a bet yourself (it's the difference between TAKING odds and GIVING odds).

If you're getting 8-to-1 on a bet when it's only 4-to-1 against making your hand, you make money by calling, regardless of pot size.

Let's suppose there are 70 chips in the pot. Your opponent bets 10, meaning there are now 80 chips in the pot. You know that you have a 20% chance of making an unbeatable hand on the next card (meaning you have an 80% chance of not making it, so the odds are 4-to-1 against). Should you call? Absolutely!

80% of the time, you will lose 10 chips by calling. But 20% of the time, you will win AT LEAST 80 chips by calling.

(0.8)*(-10) + (0.2)*(80) = 8. So you figure to win no less than 8 chips on average by calling the bet, which is an 80% return on your investment of 10 chips. Not bad!

[xDiamond_CutteRx]

Additionally, Poker is about making the correct decision in the moment regardless of past or future events (though past events often give us some clue what the correct action might be). So it doesn't matter whether a situation comes up more than once: the laws of mathematics dictate that there will be some plays that are better than others on average, and since you can't know future events, the best you can do is maximize on your average expectation in any given situation.

[-J.]

This still isn't running clear for me but thanks to the conversation thus far I believe I've realized the question I'm trying to ask in more accurate and simplified form.

Why should I consider pot odds?

It seems to me that factoring these odds into one's decision process serves no purpose other than to create artificial incentives which promote making bets you wouldn't normally make. One might consider to oneself, for example, "I only have a 1 in 20 chance of making my hand but I would get paid 40 to 1 if I did - which is great pot odds - so I'll call." You see? This just seems terrible to me. Shouldn't my decision be based on how good my hand is in relation to how good I think my opponent's hand is?

In other words, the amount I stand to gain relative to how much I'm betting has no effect on the likelihood of my winning, so why should I let it have an effect on the likelihood of my calling?

The only answer I can come up with is, as you said, a Martingale strategy, which is bad.

Let's suppose there are 70 chips in the pot. Your opponent bets 10, meaning there are now 80 chips in the pot. You know that you have a 20% chance of making an unbeatable hand on the next card (meaning you have an 80% chance of not making it, so the odds are 4-to-1 against). Should you call? Absolutely!

80% of the time, you will lose 10 chips by calling. But 20% of the time, you will win AT LEAST 80 chips by calling.

(0.8)*(-10) + (0.2)*(80) = 8. So you figure to win no less than 8 chips on average by calling the bet, which is an 80% return on your investment of 10 chips. Not bad!

Again, this just seems so wrong to me. Yes, 80% ROI is great but it doesn't matter what the ROI is if you lose, so why are you considering it in your decision to call?

Thanks for your time and consideration!

[Muck]

80% ROI is great but it doesn't matter what the ROI is if you lose

Yes it does.

You’re suffering from results oriented thinking.

Poker is about making the right decisions and letting probability do the work for you over time. That’s how casino’s work, the house has no skill they just have a tiny odds advantage in the games, over time this means they continually make money.

You don’t see casino boss running up to roulette tables saying “Stop don’t spin it, that guy bet on red, I know we have the edge but he could still win and take our money!â€

[-J.]

Poker is about making the right decisions and letting probability do the work for you over time.

No. This is the Martingale system which, as mentioned above, is flawed. Casinos are able to engage in this behavior because they have a virtually endless supply of money. An individual poker player, however, has a limited bankroll which means that making bets with the intent of winning "over time" is entirely a bad idea: you can easily run out of money before you get your return.

I may be new to poker but I'm not new to common sense. Making bets because "statistically I have to win eventually" isn't very smart. Making bets because the ROI is good isn't very smart either. Bets should be made because you believe you will win, not because of how much you might win. That's gambling and, well, I thought we were here to play poker, a game of skill.

If this is wrong then please explain to me in greater detail how or point me to a book that will do the job. Also, please don't take my argument negatively or in the tone of "a new guy who thinks he knows something." I'm just taking a stance to see how it holds up. My mind is still open, I'm still listening. It's just, at this point, I'm not seeing any proof that what you guys are saying is sensible.

Thanks again!

[HalfSugar]

Poker is about making the right decisions and letting probability do the work for you over time.

No. This is the Martingale system which, as mentioned above, is flawed. Casinos are able to engage in this behavior because they have a virtually endless supply of money. An individual poker player, however, has a limited bankroll which means that making bets with the intent of winning "over time" is entirely a bad idea: you can easily run out of money before you get your return.

I'm afraid that Muck is right and you are wrong. While I understand what you are saying, you are not looking at it right and it is nothing like the Martingale system because it does not involve doubling to recoup losses.

Players obviously do not have a limitless supply of money and yes, when the money dries up, everything Muck has said is moot but that is why good bankroll management is every bit as important as understanding the game itself.

If you sit at 1/2NL with $200 and your roll is $1,000, you are likely to go broke when you hit a downswing but if you sit at the same game with a $10,000 roll, you are much more like to weather the downswing and survive until the next upswing.

The thing I think you need to realise is that the concept of making the 'right' call relies on having a huge sample size. Simply saying that you are a 3 to 1 to hit and will call because you are getting better than 3 to 1 on your money is fine in isolation but if you brick that enough times on the trot (the downswing) you are in a world of trouble if you run out of money.

However, if you run that scenario 1,000,000 times, it can only be a fact that it is a profitable play. I can't really explain it better than that.

[xDiamond_CutteRx]

Poker is about making the right decisions and letting probability do the work for you over time.

No. This is the Martingale system which, as mentioned above, is flawed. Casinos are able to engage in this behavior because they have a virtually endless supply of money. An individual poker player, however, has a limited bankroll which means that making bets with the intent of winning "over time" is entirely a bad idea: you can easily run out of money before you get your return.

I may be new to poker but I'm not new to common sense. Making bets because "statistically I have to win eventually" isn't very smart. Making bets because the ROI is good isn't very smart either. Bets should be made because you believe you will win, not because of how much you might win. That's gambling and, well, I thought we were here to play poker, a game of skill.

If this is wrong then please explain to me in greater detail how or point me to a book that will do the job. Also, please don't take my argument negatively or in the tone of "a new guy who thinks he knows something." I'm just taking a stance to see how it holds up. My mind is still open, I'm still listening. It's just, at this point, I'm not seeing any proof that what you guys are saying is sensible.

Thanks again!

Question: why do you think the house always wins in the long term in Blackjack?

That should be a good starting point for our discussion.

[Muck]

Poker is about making the right decisions and letting probability do the work for you over time.

No. This is the Martingale system which, as mentioned above, is flawed. Casinos are able to engage in this behavior because they have a virtually endless supply of money. An individual poker player, however, has a limited bankroll which means that making bets with the intent of winning "over time" is entirely a bad idea: you can easily run out of money before you get your return.

The critical thing to take away from this is that this is the opposite of the martin gale system. The crutch of the MGS is that you fight the odds by escalating your bet until you eventually win. I.e. you’re the guy with the -20% ROI but you keep losing and trying again but with more. If you can see the weakness in the MGS you should be able to extrapolate this.

that is why good bankroll management is every bit as important as understanding the game itself.

I left bankroll management out of my post because I didn’t want to make it too long, I’ve found people tend to only scan over large post so I try to focus on single points.
Yes this is a critical supporting fact to the viability of +EV poker.

making the 'right' call relies on having a huge sample size.

You can visualise it like this J. Imagine a graph of my bankroll, I play 2 hours a night and always have an 80% chance to win*.
Yes the line for this week will be jagged and might even end down on how much I started the week with, but if you pan back to look at the month, then years, you will see the line getting less erratic and the further back you go the closer the line will become to a perfectly flat incline of profit.

*poetic licence

Question: why do you think the house always wins in the long term in Blackjack?

That should be a good starting point for our discussion.

I think J doesn’t believe that statistical advantage can be scaled down to the point where it’s viable for an individual.

If this is wrong then please explain to me in greater detail how or point me to a book that will do the job. Also, please don't take my argument negatively or in the tone of "a new guy who thinks he knows something." I'm just taking a stance to see how it holds up. My mind is still open, I'm still listening. It's just, at this point, I'm not seeing any proof that what you guys are saying is sensible.

We have pro-poker players, that’s kind of proof Seriously though I’m glad your being open minded about this and likewise people aren’t just say “Because its so, now believe it!â€

[sly]

I may be new to poker but I'm not new to common sense. Making bets because "statistically I have to win eventually" isn't very smart.

I'm new to poker, but the way I see pot odds is calling bets when you will have the best hand if you make your draw. Your idea sounds like you only want to bet made hands on the flop like top pair, two pair, or a set. If you are going to play drawing hands, you might as well try to play with the odds in your favor. If you play drawing hands in the hopes of making your straigt, flush, or straight flush on the flop and will fold otherwise then aren't you losing more money than you would by staying in to see the turn and river when the odds are in your favor? Because you are losing whatever you bet to see the flop and are also "losing" the money you could win by folding before the turn and river.

[jimmer]

Welcome to the forum -J.

In theory -J. you are right, you should only be betting when you believe you have the best hand. However poker is not that simple. I believe you are not taking into consideration all the other factors.

Sooner or later the blinds will eat you away and you will have to play a hand. How about playing differently depending on the type of day you've had or how sober or drunk you are? What about the fact that some players are more aggressive than others or will play differently depending on how much they have already won or lost? What about the fact that you will often lose with the best hand or win with the worst? Then there's your bankroll, other people bluffing you or slow-playing you etc etc etc. I could keep going......

I think this discussion goes to show how many different factors need to be taken into consideration before you can become a 'consistant' winning poker player.

............ Making bets because "statistically I have to win eventually" isn't very smart. Making bets because the ROI is good isn't very smart either. Bets should be made because you believe you will win, not because of how much you might win. That's gambling and, well, I thought we were here to play poker, a game of skill.

As i said, in theory -J., you are right. However I think your mindset is common with players who are new to the game.

A common story for newbie's is this;
deposit money on a pokersite.
Find the biggest game you can for the amount of funds you have.
Win a bit.
Win a bit more.
Move up stakes.
Win a bit more.
Think poker is easy.
Have one bad beat and lose the lot.
Deposit more money into the pokersite and start the process again.
.....
.....
.....

Very rarely will you; Get to the river and have the nuts.

Unless you are in this position you can't guarentee you have the best hand. Therefore you need to somehow make up your money elsewhere. This is acheived by taking calculated risks by only playing when the odds are in your favor, hence giving you an edge.