Thanks for all the comments on this week’s What’s Your Play? In this post I’m going to talk a lot about a concept that I call Value Targeting. Hopefully it will make sense just from what I say here, but if you want to learn more about it, you can read Aiming for Value or watch my Getting Paid series on Tournament Poker Edge.
Choosing a Target
The first step in choosing your value target is to think about what you want Villain to have, which generally would be hands just slightly weaker than yours. In this case, that would be two-pair, overpairs, and then top pair with a good kicker, in that order.
Then you have to think about how these hands fit into Villain’s range. I actually want to back up a moment and pretend we’re going through this process before checking the flop, because that’s when you should do it. So for the moment I’m going to assume we don’t yet have the information about Villain’s flop action – we’ll return to that later.
None of the two-pair combos is at all likely given Villain’s pre-flop raise, but the overpairs as well as AQ and KQ are squarely in her range. They’re going to play more or less the same way, so at least for the moment we can think of all of them collectively as the value target.
Finally, we have to make sure that it actually matters what we do when Villain has these hands. In this case I think it clearly does – we aren’t guaranteed to stack her even on a safe runout, and there are a lot of ways in which the board could get scary, so we definitely can’t treat it as an automatic stacking if she has AA. If we held 99 here, we could more safely say that if she has 55 there’s a good chance we’ll stack her no matter what and we might choose to dig deeper than that next-weakest hand for our value target. But with 55, we need to put some thought into the best way to get her stack.
It’s worth mentioning that we’ve so far ignored the Button in this analysis. That’s because he’s much less likely to have a hand that can pay us off than is the pre-flop raiser. If, later in the hand, he shows interest in the pot, we might have to reassess, but for now we should focus on getting paid by the player most likely to have a hand that can pay us.
Value Planning
Now that we have our target, we have to decide how to maximize value against those hands. Piefarmer does a great job of walking through the logic:
Hero’s hand is worth 3 or more bets if the board texture does not change. Villain has the initiative, so we need to decide if we should take it away. Snce our target has a good one pair hand on a draw heavy board, front loading value should be considered. However, villain may not be a good hand reader. Slowplaying is not ideal here because we have a value target and our hand may lose value if the draws hit.
If Villain has one strong pair, then we want to shovel money into the pot as quickly as possible. What’s the best way to do that?
Several of you had the interesting suggestion of taking the lead and betting the flop. If you believe a bet will induce a raise over which you can shove, then I like that play. However, if Villain just calls, which seems very possible, then you’re stuck needing to bet the turn and river to get stacks in, and by the time you get to the river Villain probably won’t feel nearly as good about her overpair as she does now.
If you’re confident she’ll bet, which I’m confident she will if she has the hands we want her to have, then check-raising and shoving the turn enables you to get the money in sooner, which is a good thing. If you’re really lucky, she may even shove over your raise, enabling you to get it in on the flop.
Bet Sizing
Although we’ve established a tentative value target and value plan, it’s good to reassess whenever you get new information. So what can we glean from Villain’s bet sizing? TaddisvonBaddis takes it for weakness:
IMO these types of players, when playing AA/KK or AQ here would bet larger to “protect their hand” and “charge the draws”. Even if they aren’t even thinking to that extent and are merely concerned with their own hand regardless of board texture, this is not a bet size that screams AA or KK or AQ to me. Rather, it looks like a continuation bet with AK/AJ or JJ/TT/88 type hands.
notCIA, however, has just the opposite interpretation:
My first thought was a check raise would look so strong to her and then I realized how small her c-bet was, as if she’s inviting someone to come along or even pop it. I’d say AA, KK, QQ, 99, AQ, KQs from her possible pre-flop range, also fit her flop bet, and will often at least call (of course, hero is dominated by QQ, 99) a check raise from the hero who originally limped pre-flop.
And Duggs dismisses it entirely:
I dont take too much out of the sizing because scared amateurs typically dont accurately estimate the size of the pot and this probably looks like a standard bet size to her. The fact she cbet only serves to weight her range away from air slightly imo. since she is more likely to give up with air than she is too slow play value hands.
I’m not completely agnostic on this point – in fact I’m inclined to agree with Taddis – but there’s certainly some ambiguity. And given that we can’t be sure, it’s worth thinking about what we have to gain in each case. On this point, I agree with notCia that, “If her c-bet was from weakness, hero is not going to get anything more from her in any case.”
There’s no sense in slowplaying against her weak range because it will have difficulty improving to something second-best to pay you off. If she has AK, one or more of her pair cards will probably also put three hearts out there. If she has JJ or TT, she can improve only by turning a set or an open-ended straight draw, one of which is of course disastrous for you and the other hardly a bonanza. So even if you think she’s a little more likely to be weak than strong, it still makes sense to proceed as though she were strong simply because the potential payoff if you’re right is so much higher.
I opted for a raise that would enable me to shove the turn without overbetting the pot. This way even if the turn is a scary card and she folds, at least I’d get a bigger flop bet into the pot. There’s a case to be made for check-raising smaller and then overbet shoving the turn, but it results in you winning less if she folds the turn. And I’m not a fan of a very small check-raise followed by small turn and river bets, because our goal is to get the money into the pot before the river.
Results
I raised to 900, and she folded. If you have a good value plan, then don’t assume that failure to win a big pot with a big hand indicates a mistake on your part. It’s just bad luck that Villain didn’t have the right part of her range this time.
“She’s made a few “suspicious” folds where it seemed like she thought she was probably good but just wasn’t comfortable calling a big bet. Basically it seems like she’s been giving people credit whenever they bet or raise and is mostly playing the strength of her own hand.”
“I’m not a fan of a very small check-raise followed by small turn and river bets, because our goal is to get the money into the pot before the river”
It seems to me that these two statements don’t go together well. It feels like in this spot if you can get %100 of her stack with x # of combos in her range, you could probably get %65 of her stack with more with than 2x # of combos in her range (over simplifying of course because you will get drawn out on more often with weaker bets).
FWIW my main experience with this type of player comes solely from the late stages of a $40 rebuy (obviously before the rebuy no one is ever folding anything) I play visiting family on holidays in Deadwood, SD. They may very well play differently in a $1500 WSOP event. But when I take a strong line like you suggest they’ll usually call with AQ, but will often find a fold holding KQ (sometimes folding face up). However if you make a small c/r and smallish turn and river barrels they’ll sometimes look you up with JJ, as long as you leave them with a stack they don’t feel totally crippled with.
I’m not saying I think your wrong, I’m just saying I’m not %100 convinced given that she’s already displayed a talent for folding when she feel she may be good. Against most players in this spot I’m taking the line you suggest. I wish I had an extra $100 to spend on the CardRunners EV program so I can convince myself one way or the other (too much work to do by hand).
Been busy .. missed this one coming out but love the hand/situation. I don’t like the idea of letting bottom set go too far without some aggression against this type of draw heavy board, but the tactics MUST be opponent dependent to get max value. Although this is probably not the best board for our opponents range (other than QQ or flush draw) I feel the need to grow the pot a bit more before any more cards come out to play!!
I totally agree with checking this Flop and allowing a passive opponent to continue to control the betting lead on this street. This could be a bit risky if we have shown some c/r previously or a very aggressive betting style where this may seem a bit trappy to a ‘scared’ opponent.
I also think we do need to c/r the Flop and get some additional value (not ‘see where we are at’) from an opponent who may very well shut down should the board get any more busy on the Turn. Even with QQ here there is a very high expectation that the Turn would get checked through if a 3rd flush card hits the board.
I think we went a little too big with the raise though. I don’t realy like the min-raise, but I think 900 was asking too much of her stack when it’s safe to assume that she knows she can be beat by a flush most of the time. Something like 600 to 650 may have let her know we are still worried about our hand but want a little bigger pot. This should probably be done with the intention of checking most Turns that ‘improve’ the board. This may sound backwards, but I think it would be the best way to get additional value from the hand on the River if the Turn gets checked through. With ‘safe’ Turns we can lead out small again and hope that she re-raises the over-pair so we can then put stacks into play.
Perhaps any raise on the Flop cost us any hope of additional value in this particular hand, but I always want to figure out how to get 3 additional bets into the pot on Flop and Turn with bottom set and then let the River dictate how we proceed with additinal value unless the board goes nuts on us.
Thanks for the comment, answer. One thing jumps out at me: you rarely discuss Villain’s hand. If she has an overpair, do you really think she will call 650 but fold to 900? How often do you see people folding an overpair to a single raise? I’m also not sure what you mean by “she knows she can be beat by a flush most of the time”.
I agree with checking a bad turn card if the flop c/r is called. At that point we can only hope to get one more bet out of our hand, and she’s going to feel a lot more comfortable calling the river than calling the turn with the threat of a river bet still to come (I wouldn’t be trying to shove). I’m not sure about betting small on safe turns hoping to induce a shove, only because she’s shown herself to be kinda scared/passive. Against such players I’d rather put the money in myself rather than rely on them to do it. Usually they are better at calling than betting/raising.
Thanks again, sorry you missed this one but don’t forget there’s an active one now (posted on Saturday)!
When I try to condense comments things get mixed together. No, I don’t see her folding out an over-pair to a single raise … but I do see her folding out marginal hands when she ‘thinks’ that the bet is a large portion of her stack. If we are only interested in getting calls from the upper portion of her range then the bet can be bigger.
We need to let her know that she is ‘ahead’ by betting small. A small Turn bet ‘should’ signal a missed draw that is trying to continue to build a pot. This doesn’t ‘make’ her put a large portion of her stack in to call the bet. We want her to feel like she is ahead when she puts money in the pot. This goes against your ideal, but I think it puts into max value.
I think where we differ perhaps is that I am looking at her whole range and you may only be interested in a more narrow portion of her calling range. This certainly depends on our previous betting patterns since if we convert to nibbles from previously always taking bite sized stabs at pots, then she should pick up on this as a trap. GL
“I think where we differ perhaps is that I am looking at her whole range and you may only be interested in a more narrow portion of her calling range.”
I think you’re right that this is our critical difference. I’m a firm believer in targeting specific hands for value rather than trying to win a little something no matter what Villain has. If you think you can get max value from her overpairs and also squeeze a little more from weaker hands, more power to you. But if you’re forced to choose between either stacking overpairs and winning nothing more from weak hands or winning a lot less from overpairs and a little more from weak hands, I’d choose the former.
I think that is the situation we’re in. Getting money in early against overpairs is critical, especially against this player who is likely to shut down if the board gets scary. More important IMO to maximize value against the top of her range and just accept that if she has JJ we aren’t going to win much no matter what we do. That’s the main point I wanted to make with this post.
I agree that if she’s calling a 650 c/r then she’s probably calling 900. What I didn’t understand was the option of checking bad turn cards and making non-shoving bets on the river. The thought didn’t even occur to me. With this clarification I’m much much closer to %100 sure your line is more optimal.