Semi-bluff or value

jeffncjeffnc Red Chipper Posts: 4,639 ✭✭✭✭✭
edited March 6 in General Concepts
With effective stacks of $300, your opponent raises to $6 preflop with a range of JJ+ and you call with :9S: :8S: in the BB. On a flop of :7S: :6S: :2D: you check, he bets $6 and you shove. In your opinion, do you consider this a semi-bluff or a value play? (For sake of argument, assume there is a chance of both calling or folding, and ignore absolutes like "he never folds an overpair" or "he would never call such a big bet".)

Semi-bluff or value

Sign in to vote!
This is a public poll: others will see what you voted for.

Comments

  • U_TurnU_Turn Las VegasRed Chipper Posts: 36 ✭✭
    Value
    Interesting question. I went with value since we have >50% equity when called.
  • Brews_and_CardsBrews_and_Cards Red Chipper Posts: 101 ✭✭
    edited March 7
    Semi-bluff
    Technically, I think it's a semi-bluff. Because a value bet is one that looks to be called by worse hands. And at the moment, despite our solid equity, we have 9 high.
  • jeffncjeffnc Red Chipper Posts: 4,639 ✭✭✭✭✭
    ...looks to be called by worse hands. And at the moment....

    This is the crux of the question, because once all in, why is "at the moment" relevant any more? The question would be even harder if instead of shoving the flop, you simply raised small.

  • jeffncjeffnc Red Chipper Posts: 4,639 ✭✭✭✭✭
    U_Turn wrote: »
    Interesting question. I went with value since we have >50% equity when called.

    While we have >50% equity, a better question might (or might not) be, do we want him to call or fold?
  • U_TurnU_Turn Las VegasRed Chipper Posts: 36 ✭✭
    Value
    jeffnc wrote: »
    U_Turn wrote: »
    Interesting question. I went with value since we have >50% equity when called.

    While we have >50% equity, a better question might (or might not) be, do we want him to call or fold?
    It’s probably close enough that we need to take max rake into consideration. In a game with no rake, I want him to call every time.


  • U_TurnU_Turn Las VegasRed Chipper Posts: 36 ✭✭
    Value
    I thought about this more and now I’m not sure. I was trying to do the math roughly in my head and it’s so close. When I get home I want to do the math and see which is more +EV.
  • U_TurnU_Turn Las VegasRed Chipper Posts: 36 ✭✭
    Value
    Yeah, it’s not as close as I thought. Even in a reasonably raked game I’ll take a call every time.
  • TheGameKatTheGameKat Posts: 2,016 -
    If we take Sklansky's formal definition of a semi-bluff, this is one. However, that's a semantic answer and not a particularly interesting one.

    Doesn't this just indicate that many bets are hybrids? I know you play PLO, jeff, these spots are almost the norm there.
    Moderation In Moderation
  • jeffncjeffnc Red Chipper Posts: 4,639 ✭✭✭✭✭
    TheGameKat wrote: »
    If we take Sklansky's formal definition of a semi-bluff, this is one.

    Maybe. He says it's a bet "with a hand, which, if called, does not figure to be the best hand at the moment but has a reasonable chance of outdrawing those hands that initially called it."

    But also, "when you bet as a semi-bluff, you are rooting to win right there just as you are when you make a pure bluff."

    Clearly, that's not the case here.

    In PLO, this scenario isn't possible. There is almost always going to be a lot of money in the pot relative to the bets. The equities run close together, so you almost always want a fold against a hand that has a lot of equity against you regardless of who's currently ahead or who's a favorite.

    And yes, I know this is semantics, maybe more interesting to me than others :)

  • TheGameKatTheGameKat Posts: 2,016 -
    What I meant about PLO is that it's often the case that the drawing hand is an equity favorite. In NLHE you need these OESD+FD unicorns. Which I think explains Sklansky's elaboration of his definition.

    Now, I know you gave us the "no absolutes" rider here, but there's a plausibility argument that facing the overbet V calls all sets (against which you're an equity dog) and folds all overpairs (against which you'e a favorite), in which case the shove is neither a value-bet nor a semi-bluff, it's a cock-up.
    Moderation In Moderation
  • jeffncjeffnc Red Chipper Posts: 4,639 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Yeah, I was keeping it to overpairs to make it simple. If he folds overpairs, then... I'm not sure what a cock-up is but it's probably that :)
  • MichaelBMichaelB Red Chipper Posts: 211 ✭✭✭
    Value
    If I were ever to do this for some reason, it would be because I want him to call.
  • TheGameKatTheGameKat Posts: 2,016 -
    jeffnc wrote: »
    Yeah, I was keeping it to overpairs to make it simple. If he folds overpairs, then... I'm not sure what a cock-up is but it's probably that :)

    Sorry, I'm getting over flu and reverting to the lexicon of my youth. Screw up, error, not good etc.
    Moderation In Moderation
  • BigFarmBigFarm MontrealRed Chipper Posts: 45 ✭✭
    Your thought experiment is just proof that the terminology we use to discuss poker strategy is imperfect. It's really only meant to make hand histories and other strategic discussions easier and faster. These grey areas are what make poker interesting and it's not helpful to try to oversimplify.
  • LeChiffreLeChiffre NetherlandsRed Chipper Posts: 458 ✭✭✭
    Value
    I just tend to stick to the ">50% equity when called" principle for defining my value bets, no matter if we have a made hand or not.
  • RedRed Red Chipper Posts: 1,973 ✭✭✭✭
    edited March 7
    jeffnc wrote: »
    In your opinion, do you consider this a semi-bluff or a value play?
    I might ask a naive question, but... why would it matter if it's labelled "value bet" or "semi-bluff" ?
    I kinda feel it's a pointless question ô_o
  • jeffncjeffnc Red Chipper Posts: 4,639 ✭✭✭✭✭
    As I already said, it's semantics. If you think it's pointless, on to the next post.

Leave a Comment

BoldItalicStrikethroughOrdered listUnordered list
Emoji
Image
Align leftAlign centerAlign rightToggle HTML viewToggle full pageToggle lights
Drop image/file