[fivebyfive]

So this is interesting, but is focused around cash games more. I’d argue that even in weaker tournament fields, we still want to employ downbets quite a bit. The reason is really around tournament life. The loose passive player is less common in weak tournament fields than the weak fit-or-fold tournament player (in my experience). If we find ourselves up against a loose passive player, then this article makes sense, but honestly, I think we find more of those in cash games. Because stacks get shorter and shorter and tournament life is valued, I think downbets in tourneys still represent a winning strategy in weak fields.

The beauty of them is that against tougher opponents, we play closer to solver strategy, while at the same time against weaker fit-or-fold players we play exploitively (because they fold too often and don’t raise enough). So I appreciate the sentiment here and I think in weaker, deep stacked cash games, it makes a lot of sense. But in tournaments, I wouldn’t get rid of this powerful tool in our arsenal.

My humble opinion.

[monkiesystem]

I’d have to agree with the advice in the blog being more for cash game players than for tournaments. Maybe it’s relevant to the starting deep stack levels of tournaments.

I found in my small stakes online cash games that down bets get called too often. I got the folds OR action I wanted by upping the size of my C-bets.

Even worse than getting called too often is that they were getting raised too often. That’s unwanted almost always. It’s as if those small stakes players saw the small bet size as weakness and attacked it. Upping my C-bet sized tamed those players.

Cash games are all about the small edges, coolers and punts. Tournaments are about survival. Pot control is more important in tournaments.

[eanderson85]

The same thing applies to down betting. A long time ago somebody decided a proper bet should be about ½ the size of the pot or more, and anything less than that was weak. And that was that.

I was not just decided, the math says so. The difference between then and now is that solvers can do the math of a range vs range equity calculation, compared to a notepad and a calculator back then.

Betting a half pot bet gives your opponent 25% pot odds (call 1/2 to win 4/2).
That means they have to have 11 outs or better to call without implied odds, and 6 outs makes a pair by the river 24.14%
So, if your opponent calls a 1/2 pot flop bet with 2 overcards and no draw they are losing money in the long run.

If you bet 1/3 pot, you are giving yourself a 25% Break even percentage (bet 1/3 to win 4/3). That means if villain folds more than 25% of the time you are printing money. Is villain calling your 1/3 pot cbet over 75% of the time?

EV = (%W*$W)- (%L*$L)
where:
EV= expected value of your hand
%W= How often you win (Equity of hand)
$W= money won
%L= 1- %W (ignoring chops)
$L= money lost.

If we assume we always lose when called, and always win when folded to. Our actual hand equity is our profit.
$100 pot and we bet 1/3 pot.
(25%*100) – (75%*33) = 25-25= 0.
This means we break even with two napkins in our hand if villain folds 25% of the time. If they fold more, we are profiting with any two cards.

Two unpaired cards flop a pair or better 32.4%.
Suited connectors flop a draw roughly 21%, but only complete the draw roughly 1/3 of the time, so 7% of suited connectors call a river bet.

So,<font color=”rgba(0, 0, 0, 0)” face=”inherit”> if they call with all draws and a pair or better, they are calling 53.4% of the time. That’s way above our 25% BE% of a 1/3 pot bet.
But we haven’t factored in our hand equity yet.

</font>53.4- 25% = 28.4% of the time we have to win the hand to break even (always assuming no more money goes into the pot). Using a Lojack opening range and clicking random flops in Flopzilla, I found 9/100 flops where we had less than 29% equity against a Big Blind calling range,
making us indifferent or a slight loser on this 1/3 pot flop bet.
2/3 of their suited connectors will drop out by the river, so we still win if we bet on future streets.

As always and forever, villain dependent. 😀

To those of you saying pot odds don’t matter until the river, I ask you to compare the fold % of your solve to the MDF and see how often they add up to 100%.

By the way, the same notepad math applies to the 3X opening size everyone used to use. (Pot = SB+ BB= 1.5BB). Opening with a pot sized bet (3X) gives villain 33% MDF, while only flopping a pair or better 32.4%.

Adding in rake and antes to the pre-deal pot size raises your open size, lowers the SPR, and expands your range.

Adding in hand equity and fold equity lowers your open size, and with shorter stacks like in tournaments, the SPR is low enough without betting more.
The higher the pre-deal SPR, the tighter your range.

ICM is an advanced EV equation using tournament payouts instead of Big Blinds, which raises the implied SPR, which tightens your range.

Where’s the mistake(s)? Why?

[monkiesystem]

Factoring in a rake should greatly decrease your range size and increase opening bet size.

[eanderson85]

Right.
Rake raises SPR.
Antes lower SPR.
They shouldn’t have the same effect on range and bet size.