As of November 2021, the APT Forum is closed to new posts. Like with many online forums, usage has decreased in recent years. All previous posts are still available.
Amount to bet
In trying to improve my game, I find that when I bet a certain amount on a hand the advisor will come and say that I am betting to much or not enough. I am in the vicinity of the amount, but not what the advisor is suggesting. Is there a "formula" that I am missing? If I was to use a different advisor, is it possible that they would agree with my bet?
One thing that I thought would be helpful is that if I didn't bet enough that it would say Why it was the wrong amount. I don't seem to find the answer in the brain section.
Thanks
Sign In to comment.
Welcome
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Comments
Great question.
One thing that would be cool would be if we could replay a saved hand, and tweak what we did. We could test different bet sizes and playing decisions in that situation to see what the outcome would be. It would also be cool if we could replay a hand and see what different advisors would recommend.
We have always referred to this as the 'retry' feature, and it is a little harder to do than it might seem. We've always wanted to have it, but there have always been other bigger needs for the site But the good news is that Gabriel is currently working on this as his big development project. So this will be our next big feature and I'm excited about it.
As we get better, it appears that APT is getting better also! It sounds like you have a couple of very key developments in progress: A significant improvement to the quality of the bots and the retry feature. Both of those features in combination will really help us to tweak our game.
Not to overwhelm the development process, but I also think that Cosmas' suggestion of incorporating the "why" of the bet amount in the Brain Section would give me a better of idea of the thought process in bet-sizing (e.g. you are betting so much that you are not giving weaker hands a chance to call with incorrect pot odds; or you are betting so little that you are making it profitable for weaker hands to call). I suspect that is one of my weaknesses, but that weakness doesn't seem to be available in the weekly training plan.
As a general rule of thumb, if you fire a bet of something between 2/3 and 3/4 of the pot every time you bet, you can't really go too far wrong. Basically your bet sizing comes down to getting your opponent to pay off more than they should based on their odds to win with the next card coming, or making the minimum bet necessary to get your opponent to fold a made hand better than yours (i.e., to bluff them out of the pot).
For example, if you have a made hand and they are on a flush or straight draw at ~5-to-1 hit it on the next card, as long as you make them pay off at least a 1/2 pot bet, they are rolling to a negative EV on that street.
I think that the "balanced range" concept, while valid in the theoretical sense, is over-rated/over-done. Of course, it is very important in the much tougher games (which are beyond my pay grade) or in games in which you play with the same players over an extended period of time (e.g. a weekly home game). In a typical card-room game where you will play about 4-5 hours with players that you will never play with again, it probably make more sense to tailor your bet size to maximize getting calls from weaker/-EV hands and folds from the hands that have you beat. Clearly that is exploitable in the theoretical sense, but it requires an extremely observant opponent who also knows how to exploit it. If I find myself up against a table full of those, talented, observant players, I start looking for another table.
On a side note - Sometimes I find myself making bet sizes that have the effect of folding-out most of the hands that I would like my opponent to call with and leaving only those hands that have me beat - not a winning methodology.
There is certainly a component of bet sizing that depends on the opponents you are facing. I find this manifests itself in two key ways:
First, I have to adjust my basic sizing to fit what is happening at my table. Obviously, if you are constantly betting half pot and being unsuccessful at meeting your objective (getting players to call/fold in a beneficial way) then you may have to do trial and error to find the sweet spot. This is partially because of the second point below.
Second, I find that, especially at the lower stakes games, there are quite a few players who pay little to no attention to their odds, or to what you are representing with your bets. For example, if they don't understand when they are priced out, it does you no good to price them out. This is when I feel more inclined to scrap the idea of having a balanced range and just size my bets to maximize my own EV.
While I agree with points made above, my general observation is still that keeping my bet sizing between 2/3 and 3/4 of the pot tends to serve the purposes suggested. I would find it infrequent that a player who is inclined to fold to a 2/3 pot bet (but from whom I want a call) is going to call a 1/2 pot bet. Or that a player who is inclined to call a 3/4 pot bet (but whom I want to fold) is going to fold to a pot bet.
Just thinking through what you both are saying has given a deeper glimpse into this whole concept.
Notice that I said "glimpse". I am still not quite at the point where this is hard-wired into my thought process like you'all are.
Agreed. Against most opponents in low stakes games you can keep to a fixed fraction of the pot for a bet and that will be sufficient to balance your game. But against advanced opponents in higher stakes games it can cost money.
For myself it'll be quite awhile before I can think about refining my game to the point of have balanced ranges for multiple bet sizes. But it is a long term goal I'm thinking about.