Is it a Value Bet or a Bluff? Why, It's Both

In the classic definition of a "value bet," it is generally considered to take place on the river when one has a hand that he thinks is slightly better than his opponent's hand. Value betting is a topic that does not seem to get a whole lot of discussion, but it is important. Over the long run, the value bettors of the world will earn a slightly higher hourly rate than the more conservative sect, who opt to check stud hands like jacks up into boards that may contain one overcard, such as a king or queen. Sure, there will be times when they'll get called or even raised by a better hand, but my opinion is that long-term hourly rates will be augmented by carefully choosing the seemingly correct times to make these bets.

Bluffing at the correct times is paramount to being a winning player. Of course, knowing when those "correct times" exist is a very complex task. One has to know opponents' capabilities of laying a marginal hand down, such as an unimproved pair of tens, and their ability to read hands and consequently their ability to misread your represented hand. Other factors like the temperament and texture of the game, your board, who raised on what streets, and a litany of other considerations all play their part, as well.

Recently in Atlantic City, I had split fives in a $75-$150 game. The low card was a 4.

Third street: Although in early position, I took a shot and dropped three green chips into the pot. The opponents' doorcards were all high, but duplicated. If someone had anything, I figured I would find out soon enough. Everyone folded except the low card. He merely called.

Fourth street: He caught an offsuit 6 and I caught an irrelevant (both offsuit and nonpairing) 10. I bet and he called. I noticed some minor hesitation on his part, as if he did not really want to call.

Fifth street: He caught a 10, which made three different suits on his board. I caught yet another irrelevant card; I believe it was a deuce. The significance of his catching a 10 was two-fold. Of course, my having a 10 bolstered the chances that his 10 did not help him. Also, he became the high board, giving me position. He slightly sighed under his breath and checked. I ascertained it to be a non-Hollywood performance and borne of a genuine unimproved hand. I bet. He contemplated. Eventually, he slightly shrugged and called.

Sixth street: He caught a paint card, and as I mentioned earlier, there were many of them discarded on third street. His was a queen and there were two out already. I detected no improvement on his part. I also received no help. My question now was whether or not he had sixes or fours. To be honest, I really wasn't sure. I was leaning toward fours because he had a 4 for a doorcard. Also, because I had two fives, I thought an original holding of 4-5-6 was somewhat unlikely, although far from impossible. On the other hand, was he really giving me all this action with two fours, when the chances were that I had at least fives? I was really sitting on the fence about this. I assumed he had one pair for sure. Of all the high cards seen, there were no aces out. I considered the possibility that I was being sandbagged for a sixth-street check-raise by pocket rockets. I erred on the side of caution and checked behind him. I figured he would let me know on the river if such were the case with a lead-out bet.

Seventh street: I got zilch. He was first to act, and I saw that subtle but telling sigh of his again. He checked - so much for my fear of a big pocket pair. Some on-the-fly estimation - or I should say "guesstimation" - told me there was very roughly a 50-50 chance he would fold sixes if I were to bet, but a 20 percent to 25 percent chance he would pay me off with two fours. I also guessed that of the two probable hands, a pair of fours was a favorite over a pair of sixes being held. All things considered, I bet.

Now, is my bet a value bet or a bluff? Well, it does appear to be a bit of both, doesn't it? If he has sixes, obviously I am hoping to bluff him out, which would not be an unreasonable expectation on my part, or an altogether horrible laydown on his part. Of course, if he has just fours, I would love the extra $150 payoff, wouldn't I? He thought and thought and thought. He paid me off with two fours, and everyone at the table seemed amazed that all I had was two fives, got called, and managed to rake in the pot, anyway.

All things considered - the way the hand played out, the cards that were folded, and the other issues that took place - the only correct play was the bet. To check in that unusual situation would be incorrect. The pot had around $700 in it, as there was not a full eight antes in it at the outset. I was getting close to 5-to-1 on my bet should I be "stealing" it from two sixes. Even if there was only a 35 percent or 40 percent chance that he would fold that small pair, it was obviously worth it. Also, since the odds were in favor of his having two fours, why not make this marginal value bet? Poker is so weird sometimes, that a single bet could have two seemingly opposed motives behind it, but there you have it.