In one of the recent podcasts (sorry I don't remember which one) Bart stated that it is better to win about 55 to 60 percent of your river value bets than 90%. I understand the concept behind this, but I have to wonder if the math always works to make this true.

For example: Let's say that I value bet the river 10 out of 40 opportunities with a 90% success rate. To keep the math easy let's say that each value bet is $100.

If I am successful on 9 of these 10 bets, I win a net $800 (win 900 lose 100 = net 800).

If I value bet 20 times instead of 10 and am successful 60% of the time, I win a net $400 (win 1200 lose 800 = net 400).

If I value bet 30 times instead of 10 and am successful 60% of the time, I win a net $600 (win 1800 lose 1200 = net 600).

I need to value bet 40 times instead of 10 and be successful 60% of the time just to net the same $800 as the 90% example (win 2400 lose 1600 =net 800).

Is there a flaw in my analysis here, and if so, what is it? Thanks in advance for any response!

## Comments

7,090SubscriberI have noticed that for me I generally get called very few times when I bet the river.. Not sure if thats just because I am not betting enough or because of my image I get called a bit less.. but I have been making a concerted effort to value bet more on the river.. I have been called a few times and I have NOT been good and thats ok.. I am then hoping that again when I value bet someone who remembered I bet and lost will now call me who would have folded and I will be good.

at least thats the idea..

ww

My point is that depending on the numbers, it may be better to value bet less and be successful when called at a high percentage rate than to add a lot of losing value bets (when called) if you are only adding a few additional successful ones.

As in my example above, I would rather be successful 90% of the time when called on 10 value bets than be successful 60% of the time when called on 20 value bets. Why? Because I prefer a net $800 gain to a net $400 gain.

Of course, if you are only value betting once out of 40 times then the math is different and you are better off adding the additional 19 at 60%, as a gain of $400 is better than a $90 ev gain. I suspect that this is the type of scenario that Bart had in mind!

353SubscriberI don't have a good handle on what an appropriate value-own percentage would be on the river, because it's a situation where small sample size is going to come into play for most of us, but I'm guessing an appropriate river value betting range is going to be good something more like 70-80% of the time instead of 55-60%. In order to be good such a low percentage of the time when our river bets are called means that we are probably adding a lot of value bets where we are going to be good only 20-30% of the time that are balancing out our bets where we are good 90-100% of the time. But my number is a shot in the dark; if most of our river value bets are thin value bets, then Bart's percentage estimate could be correct.

371MemberAlso. the success rate is not always going to be 60% for every case. You will still have those 90% success rate spots in your sample. so you will be winning the same 800 as you are with the higher success rate but also the additional 400 from the lower success rate. So the net is going to be higher the closer your thin value bets get to the 50% mark without going under (obv)

I hope this is clear..

371Memberyou are good (each bet is $100)

55% EV +$10

60% EV +$20

65% EV +$30

70% EV +$40

75% EV +$50

80% EV +$60

85% EV +$70

90% EV +$80

95% EV +$90

100% EV +100

If you are only betting with a success rate of 90%+ you are going to net +$270 but if you take every spot you are going to be +$550

114SubscriberThe point about 60% success is to remind us that it is long term profitable in spite of the short term negative reinforcement experienced when we value own ourselves.

286Member7,090SubscriberThere was a player I was against tonight in a number of pots and he called me a bunch of times.. A few I wasnt good but they were small pots.. But I won the all in for 600! he just thought I was FOS every time.. all from my thin value betting.. lol..

ww

29SubscriberProfessionalhttp://www.seatopenpoker.net/forum/strategy-discussion/optimal-value-own/

The notion of your opponent adjusting to your thin value bets and then paying you off more on your fat value spots is an interesting one, although again difficult to quantify when trying to determine how that 55-60% number came about.