# >50% ahead of V's calling range to have a +EV value bet on the river?

Luuk v
Red Chipper Posts:

**36**✭✭
Can someone explain this to me?

Take this situation:

- Pot is 100 on the river

- I have 20% equity against villain's calling range

- Villain never raises

- Villain is inelastic to my bet sizing, so my size does not influence his decision

- I bet 5

Wouldn't this clearly be +EV?

Or should I interpret this ">50% ahead of V's calling range to have a +EV value bet on the river" rule only in the sense that IF I have >50% equity against his calling range THEN it is always +EV, but I don't NEED >50% equity for it to be +EV. So it's sufficient but not necessary?

In other words, it's a case of X implies Y but Y does not imply X?

Take this situation:

- Pot is 100 on the river

- I have 20% equity against villain's calling range

- Villain never raises

- Villain is inelastic to my bet sizing, so my size does not influence his decision

- I bet 5

Wouldn't this clearly be +EV?

Or should I interpret this ">50% ahead of V's calling range to have a +EV value bet on the river" rule only in the sense that IF I have >50% equity against his calling range THEN it is always +EV, but I don't NEED >50% equity for it to be +EV. So it's sufficient but not necessary?

In other words, it's a case of X implies Y but Y does not imply X?

Tagged:

## Leave a Comment

#### Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

#### Categories

- 8.2K All Categories
- 461 Come Say Hello
- 2.5K Live Poker Hands
- 1.4K Online Poker Hands
- 598 Tournament Poker Hands
- 23 Local Poker Groups
- 1.7K General Concepts
- 177 New To Poker Questions
- 145 Podcast Episodes
- 171 PRO Video Discussions
- 450 Memberships & Products
- 593 Off Topic Chat
- 14 Nutrition & Fitness
- 75 Challenge Forum
- 183 Hand Reading
- 123 Live Workbook (Vol 1)
- 31 6max Workbook (Vol 1)
- 3 Final Tables Workbook
- 23 Flop Falcon software

## Comments

36✭✭70✭✭If we only have 20% equity against Villain's calling range, this "value" bet has an EV of -3

.2(5) = 1

.8(-5) = -4

1 - 4 = -3

This river bet, in a vacuum, is not a good value bet.

If the argument is that Villain will not call 100% of the time and will instead fold some hands we are losing to, or that we can make this play as a blocking bet to see a cheap showdown with our mid-strength hands....then there are logical reasons to make this play, but I would argue that you are no longer value betting your hand and are now bluffing.

36✭✭If he always calls, I will still win 110 20% of the time and lose 5 80% of the time. So my EV would be super positive right? Though I have the feeling I'm computing it the wrong way.

70✭✭We have no fold equity and we are at a showdown equity disadvantage, but the equity we do have we have will cost nothing additional to realize. So the decision of whether or not to bet on the river can be examined purely from an EV perspective - we should bet if we have >50% equity against his river calling range and we should check if we have less than 50% equity (which is the situation we find ourselves in).

So, it goes back to *why* are we making this bet?

We were going to get our 20% of the $110 pot anyway. The river bet itself has a negative EV - so how can we making that bet for value? We can't and in this spot should just check and see a free showdown.

308✭✭✭Yes........ BUT:

Suppose our opponent will call the $5 bet 100% of the time.

Our EV for betting $5 is 20%($105) - $5 = $16

Our EV for checking back is 20%($100) = $20

So its not about what is +EV at this stage of the hand, its about

what is more+EV!!!36✭✭Shouldn't the computations Joe made be like this:

Our EV for betting $5 is 20%($110) = $22

Our EV for checking back is 20%($100) = $20

--> illustrating why a $5 bet is more profitable than checking back?

So why the 20%($105)-$5?

308✭✭✭Because our bet cost us $5!

(While checking back costs us nothing)

Actually, it would be EV = 20%($110) -$5 = $22 - $5 = $17

Yes, we are getting an extra $2 in pot equity ($22 instead of $20), but its costing us $5 for that extra $2 in equity, which is a bad trade-off.

969✭✭✭✭36✭✭