"Betting When Only Better Hands Call"

I keep seeing and hearing this phrase thrown around incorrectly both in the forums and in immediate forms of communication like Ventrilo and #flopturnriver and Skype, and it sort of aggravates me. The main reason that it bothers me is that by itself, it rarely is used to accurately describe anything worthwhile to know about a particular situation. The particular language is also a bit misleading pertaining to what a player needs to be considering in betting situations to make a good decision.

The two typical examples of this are people getting confused when they see a hand where someone 3-bet bluffed with something like KTs because "only better hands call the 3-bet", or when someone bets KQ on a board of KK3r and proclaims that betting is bad because only better hands call. The first example is a misunderstanding of the concept of fold equity, and the second example is an incorrect estimation of the villain's range.

If there's some situation where a person is considering a value bet, but villain's range is one such that it would seem that "only better hands call", I think it would be better if we said something more specific to avoid further confusion and misuse of the phrase. Maybe something like: your value bet is -EV since the majority of villain's calling range beats you, and you don't have enough fold equity to turn your hand into a profitable bluff, so you should just check behind.

Its kinda lazy. In reality the bet is only bad if more of the hands that beat you call, than fold (or mathematically somewhat different than that, but its a percentage thing). For instance I may bet A high on the river if I think villain has a small PP that he'll fold. I'm only getting called by hands that beat me, but I think I fold enough hands that beat me also to be +EV.

Originally Posted by bjsaust

Its kinda lazy. In reality the bet is only bad if more of the hands that beat you call, than fold (or mathematically somewhat different than that, but its a percentage thing).

Right. This is our main concern when we're betting for value, and rightly so.

Originally Posted by bjsaust

For instance I may bet A high on the river if I think villain has a small PP that he'll fold. I'm only getting called by hands that beat me, but I think I fold enough hands that beat me also to be +EV.

This [fold equity] is our main concern when we're betting as a bluff, and it's already a given that if we're called we expect to be beat, but I see so many people suggest that we shouldn't bet in a situation like what you just gave since "only better hands call". They don't understand that it doesn't matter, and that's the most common place I see that particular phrase being misused.

Good stuff to think about. Putting the "you just turned your hand into a bluff" idea and the value betting idea side-by-side is something I hadn't done, so thanks Spoon and BJ. I have been thinking about the turn/river "equity line," which is impossible to know but everyone looks for. If I have enough equity, I need to invest more chips. If I have too little, I need to either ditch the hand or bluff.

I will think about this. Precise language is great since it points at the heart of strategic considerations.