we shold always bet enough to kill implied odds if the following 2 conditions are met

1 we are a head of villains range
2 the board is wet.

I read this in one of sklansky's new books. He's talking more about playing good players and says that if you bet small enough for the villain to see the river you can't win because a strong villain will have a balanced bluffing/value betting range. and " you will fold to much when in front and call to much when behind" . Now i doubt very many micro players have a perfectly balanced bluffing/value betting range. Having said that isn't this tactic even more useful against the calling stations at micro poker. Not because you're scared of being out played on the river but because they will call over bets with draws and weak made hands. Thus we will get a lot of value from over betting our +ev hands on wet boards.

When betting, make a bet size and determine your expected value against the range that responds to that bet size. Then compare the different expectations for all the different bet sizes you made...then bet the amount that maximized your expectation.

When playing against a calling station, its common that you're going to be betting larger than usual, because they tend to overvalue certain types of hands. For instance, its common to go Pot, Pot, Shove with a set because calling stations will see Top Pair no kicker as the nuts and put all their money in as well as calling with all sorts of draws...meanwhile someone else might not be as willing to stack off so light so our expectation of doing a pot pot shove line against them might not be as desirable.

So in a sense, its definitely correct to bet larger against these players...but its not really because of cutting implied odds.

I wouldn't pay much attention to anything Sklansky writes, a lot of it is nonsense.

There are a lot of situations where what he said isn't true and you would be losing a lot of value by applying these one size fits all generalizations

Originally Posted by Outlaw

I wouldn't pay much attention to anything Sklansky writes, a lot of it is nonsense.

There are a lot of situations where what he said isn't true and you would be losing a lot of value by applying these one size fits all generalizations

LDFO he doesn't try to tell you what to do in every scenario, but to see the fundamentals. If you actualy understand what you read instead of following it i doubt that you'll have many problems

Originally Posted by Imthenewfish

LDFO he doesn't try to tell you what to do in every scenario, but to see the fundamentals. If you actualy understand what you read instead of following it i doubt that you'll have many problems

I actually took more exception to his "one size fits all" characterization of Sklansky's writing, which, ironically, is nearly always prefaced by an explanation of how it is precisely not so.

triple post combo!

Anyhow, didn't really mean to go off on outlaw like that. About the OP:

Originally Posted by littleogre

1 we are a head of villains range
2 the board is wet.

I read this in one of sklansky's new books. He's talking more about playing good players and says that if you bet small enough for the villain to see the river you can't win because a strong villain will have a balanced bluffing/value betting range. and " you will fold to much when in front and call to much when behind" . Now i doubt very many micro players have a perfectly balanced bluffing/value betting range. Having said that isn't this tactic even more useful against the calling stations at micro poker. Not because you're scared of being out played on the river but because they will call over bets with draws and weak made hands. Thus we will get a lot of value from over betting our +ev hands on wet boards.

The only thing that bothers me about what Sklansky is saying is that it assumes our villains will always be balanced, which, with reads and such, we should have a decent chance of determining whether or not this is the case; whether villain has a tendency to bluff missed draws, while failing to bet in a similar fashion when he does hit, for example. I will readily accept, however, that in a "long-run" type situation, with varied opponents, we may end up losing overall in these spots, and as such we are better off not offering proper implied odds to our opponent.

As for your point ogre, yeah, we definitely should be taking micro noob calling stations to value town whenever possible, and I think this sort of goes hand-in-hand with not offering correct implied odds on their draws (as you said).

Originally Posted by Outlaw

I wouldn't pay much attention to anything Sklansky writes, a lot of it is nonsense.

There are a lot of situations where what he said isn't true and you would be losing a lot of value by applying these one size fits all generalizations

Meh. There are a few things wrong with this post, but I suppose Outlaw's entitled to his opinion.