"Zero-betting" as a part of overall strategy IP with a range advantage
Posted by SoManyWatches
Posted by
SoManyWatches
posted in
High Stakes
"Zero-betting" as a part of overall strategy IP with a range advantage
This is something I came up with a while ago and I can't think of any real reasons why it wouldn't be a viable option in some specific spots. Imagine a game where there was an option between betting anywhere from 0 to all-in at any point of the game. The idea is pretty simple. When you are IP with a range advantage OTF, OTT or OTR you have an option between betting and checking with that part of your range usually. Now instead of just having a strategy where you bet or check, you would use a strategy where you bet or "zero-bet" your whole range. If you choose to "zero-bet" it is now the opponents turn to choose if he wants to call or raise this bet.
The reason why I think the mix of "zero-betting" and betting is better is because it adds another decision point in the game for OOP and kind of adds a new empty street to the game. Adding more streets to any poker game is usually beneficial for IP because he now has a lot more information to work on. This wouldn't always be the case though and one of those spots would be when the pot is 3bet and OOP has a range advantage against IP. If OOP knows IP is always going to bet or "zero-bet", OOP can just check-raise or check-call his entire range without having to worry about IP checking back. For that reason "zero-betting" works best in spots where OOP doesn't have a leading range.
Why I think this is interesting is because it could be used in many games like NLHE or PLO by min-betting instead of checking back. The only criteria for this to work in the same way as "zero-betting" is that the pot has to be large enough so that the min-bet isn't too big compared to the size of the pot. It could even work in a standard cbetting spot IP but its possible that the ratio between the min-bet and pot is too high that early. Anyway those or my thoughts on the subject and feel free to shoot it down if I'm missing something obvious here.
Loading 37 Comments...
I'm not sure why this would be beneficial for IP player. The power of position is the ability to decide whether you want to end the current street for free or bet. By zero betting we essentially give the OOP player that power and relinquish our positional advantage at least for that street.
The way I think about it is that OTF or OTT IP gets more information about villains range while giving away no extra information about IP's own range because villain can decide to
1. raise IP's zero bet
2. check/"call" IP's zero bet
and on the next street OOP can either lead or check.
This adds one more decision point for OOP and makes it harder to balance various ranges. IP gives away no more information than it normally would since the "zero-bet" and check back range would be exactly the same or atleast very similar.
This would only work in a few specific situations though and I'm not sure how it would work OTR either.
If you min bet ip all the time, other players will just deal with it like you were checking.
I would do this in spots when you are unlikey to get paid by worse when you bet big and would sloplay normally but still can induce a spewraise. Like flopping quads aces in a 3bet pot. You will get called by any two and win 1 more bb or reactivate the action.
Would be more like a harsh mindtrick or whatever instead of a general strat.
Could also be used as info play. Some players will x/raise with top pair or better because they have a new opprtunity while they might just call with mediocre hands like ace high.
I actually didn't think that OOP could just "call" and lead/check with his whole range to combat the "zero-bet" which would keep the game as it was before so that was something obvious I missed. Still I am not convinced that the "zero-betting" strategy would be a mistake, because if OOP's optimal play is to "call" and then lead/check, like it would be against a check. You would just be doing him a favor by checking back instead of "zero-betting" OTF or OTT. And if instead of betting zero you bet something miniscule like a minbet you get a tiny bit of value and protection for certain parts of your range too.
I agree with what you said. The point of the "zero-bet" would be exactly to induce a mistake or get more info out of OOP even if OOP's optimal play would be to call and then lead/check. It still could be possibly used as a part of general strategy by that logic.
The only problem is that "zero-betting" could actually be a mistake and open you up to more exploitation but I can't think why that would be the case either.
It would be more of an exploit when ppl click auto x/fold after they checked oop.
Noone can tell or prove you out of the blue if the play has its merit or not. I would start out by trying in field an maybe note my observations on certain boards vs certain opponents etc.
So if I understand you correctly you state that
a) we will always have an advantage no matter what hand we have no matter which community cards we see when we have position no matter what the previous action was
b) we will therefore more better decisions = more EV
c) we virtually add 1-3 extra streets/actions by betting minimum to take to increase the amount of decisions
You summed up my thoughts pretty well with those points except for a). We only have an advantage when we have a range advantage on our opponent and those spots are generally the spots where OOP doesn't have a leading range because OOP can adjust to "zero"/min betting by check raising and check calling his entire range. The spots where OOP doesn't have or shouldn't have a leading range are the spots where you could implement the "zero"/min bet strategy to add one more decision point to the game.
The reason I posted this here is that I actually have tried it in game and it has worked pretty well so far. I was wondering if anyone could point out if there's something clearly wrong with it.
So for instance a A84 rainbow flop should be preferred to use this line on?
Yeah, I think that's good example but only when IP is the pre flop aggressor. Because if the pot is 3bet and IP is the caller then OOP probably should have a leading range on a flop like this.
OP - what is the point of being in position (why is it beneficial)?
Presumably being OOP would not be relevant because checking OOP is already the same as betting zero (but IP it is not).
The reason in a nutshell why I think this could be better than the traditional bet/check strategy is purely for the added decision points for OOP which gives more info to IP. This only works when IP has a range advantage though and I've explained it better in my other posts.
This is the starting point for a good analysis of this idea...
OP, it seems unlikely to me that betting a tiny fraction of the pot IP is part of an optimal strategy (whereas OOP it probably is). As doncamatic pointed out, part of the advantage of position is being able to close the action, and by "zero-betting" you are giving up that advantage. Additionally, you increase OOP's overall EV because they can adjust by checking their whole range (and check/raising their betting range) and getting you to put in 1 bb with the hands you would have folded to a bet. That's just one obvious way you increase OOP's EV; there are others as well. If what you are looking for is thin value/protection, then usually 1/3 pot or so will probably work better.
Can you come up with a specific example where you think minbetting IP is a good idea?
I agree that you are giving up the power of closing the action, but I also think that is a concept that is much more important when OOP has a range advantage against IP (think of a 3bet pot where IP is the caller). That's why the "zero"/min bet strategy would only work when IP has the range advantage (single raised pot where IP is the opener).
I think those are pretty good general examples but for a more specific one we can think of a HU hand in a single raised pot with a A72 flop, most people have a pretty polarized range cbetting here and could possibly implement the "zero-bet" strategy.
Take the same flop in a 3bet pot and OOP has the range advantage. Now it makes a lot more sense for IP to have a checking range for closing the action because OOP can just adjust by check raising and check calling everything like you said.
So OTR, oop will never ever have to worry about facing a bet if he checks because under the law of the zerobet IP is not allowed to bluff or valuebet when checked to? I doubt that is a great self inflicted limitation on IPs part :)
No, that's not what I mean at all. IP will still have a pretty polarized betting range but only IP's checking range would be turned into a "zero-bet" range that has some stronger hands balanced into it just like it would with a normal bet/check strategy. So IP can still value bet/bluff normally OTR, but if IP has a "zero-bet"/min bet range OTR IP has to add some stronger hands to that range too to defend against check raises.
My knee-jerk reaction is that this would lower my EV because I would have to move equity from my betting ranges (I usually use two sizes) to zero-check. Im especially worried about the EV wasted in the line check zero-check check.
My first exploitative response to the bet-or-zerobet strategy (playing OOP) would be to check 100% of my range OTR.
Can you give an example situation OTR (with ranges) that we can run a sim on?
I think the easiest spot to run a sim OTR would be when IP has 2 barreled and now has to choose between strategies. The board also has to be such that OOP shouldn't have a leading range on so you don't have to worry about OOP exploiting you checking 100% since he would be doing that regardless of your strategy. That being said I mentioned in an earlier post that I'm not sure if it would work aswell OTR as it would OTF or OTT because the information you get doesn't "compound" in the same way as it would if you "zero-bet" OTF. I also thought that it might sacrifice some equity like you mentioned, but then again it could gain EV on a "zero-bet"/min-bet raise 3bet line.
I'm not that great at running sims but for a river spot where the "zero-bet" could be implemented on is a single raised HU pot on a AK623r board where IP has 2 barreled. On this board IP can consider using the "zero-bet" strategy also OTF or OTT.
If I'm understanding correctly, you are giving OOP an extra strategic option and thus you can't be improving your EV if your opponent plays well. If zero-betting was a good play, OOP would just respond by never betting making EV(zero bet) = EV(check) for IP.
i.e. the gain from zero-betting is at best 0 vs a strong player.
By opponent never betting I guess you meant that OOP doesn't ever raise the "zero-bet"? That is something I didn't think of when I first posted this but it's still an interesting thought that checking behind could be more of a favor to OOP by not giving him the chance to make a mistake like you would with the "zero-bet".
Things change OTR though because now OOP has an incentive to raise the "zero-bet" with his stronger hands. I have no idea how idea how close or far from optimal this kinda of strategy would be though. In my mind it would be a spot where IP has a betting, "zero-betting" and a checking range OTR.
It's possible for your opponent to screw up vs it, but zero-betting cannot ever be correct against a strong opponent. At best it can be equally good as check behind. If it's better than check behind, then OOP just never raises the zero bet and now it's equally good as check behind.
That's true even for river now that I think about it. I wonder how things change when you use a min-bet instead of a "zero-bet" though. OTR it would result to a multiple bet sizes spot, but I wonder how it would look OTF or OTT if you replace the "zero-bet" with a min-bet or something else small that has a tiny bit of fold equity.
IP still acts last (fourth?) here, so it sounds like we're just placing 1bb in the pot with our hands that want 0bb in the pot while making the first 2 streets of our zero-betting range's actions otherwise unimportant (it will always go check-bet roughly zero and then continue as if we never did these things)
When IP "zero-bets" OOP can close the action by calling or re-opening it by raising, like you would against a min-bet. If you meant the same thing as Steve Paul I gave him a better answer :)
Yeah sorry when I made that explanation in my head the part where OOP calls basically didn't happen, since we laid him ~infinity:1 odds thus he won't fold to it more than ~0% of the time. You're right and I think we basically agree because once the bet starts laying actual odds then it starts doing something but that also means it's likely too big for us to want to use it with our whole range, heh.
Would be nice to see a specific hand when it worked and vs which opponents u can go with this line, cause i dont think that its only because of your range advantage, good players can adjust pretty fast to this style.....
Maybe vs unknown its a good strategy like doing it once or twice vs him until he knows with which range u r doing it vs him.
I think short term, there could be some value in this zero betting strategy
I think this is the mistake. you can't give OOP an extra strategic option with a range that looks anything like your XB range. it needs to be far more protected if you want to avoid XR abuse. If you dont protect it with enough strong TP+, and/or don't devise it to provide enough runout coverage, i think OOP should be a huge favorite to come out way ahead with a MES. If that's true, now you're talking about moving more than a just a negligable amount of your 3-street value hands into a 0-bet line, where you basically sacrifice a street of betting with those 0-bet premiums. There's nothing wrong with that in isolation, but in order for OOP to have enough XR incentive to make IP's premium value hands correct to play a mixed strategy OTF (between polar and 0-bet option), you're probably going to need him to XR at a decently high fqcy. Which he will do if you give him proper incentive to (by not protecting the zero bet with too many strong hands) .. but at this point i dont see what you've really gained. you've just created a mixed strategy with premiums OTF, by encouraging OOP to XR more aggressively. and now all the hands in your range that actually wanted to XB and realize a free card are getting their EV slashed more often by a high XR fqcy.
So from an explo perspective, i think it could make a lot of sense. but once we give BB clairvoyance over your 0-bet range, and we iterate to new equilibriums in that line, I just see you losing a lot of equity realization with your (standard) XBack range without compensation anywhere else in the tree.
Isn't this also true for a normal bet/check strategy where you add stronger hands to your checking range so OOP can't profitable lead 100% on the next street? IP's range would by split completely between betting and "zero-betting" with what I meant. It was established earlier that the maximum EV gain for the "zero-betting" strategy compared to normal bet/check is 0 against a good player because they can just "call"/check the "zero-bet" and continue like they would against a check.
If we replace the "zero-bet" with a min-bet I do agree in both cases that IP's "zero"/min-betting range should be a little bit stronger than it normally would because OOP now has an one more street to barrel with his range. On boards and spots where IP has the range advantage OOP's range is usually very capped, so if he starts raising and barreling early his range OTR is usually too weak on various different lines like raise-check-check, raise-check-bet or call-call-call and IP can very easily exploit this.
This would also effect IP's betting range because it would now be stronger so IP can use a bigger sizing than he normally would like potting or over-betting and some of the possibly lost EV comes back.
no, b/c his bluffing fqcy can be higher in the 0-bet scenario on account of having an extra street to play with. if we assume OOP polarizes his value range on the flop XR to a degree that he could bet thru the river at fqcy's that kept bluffcatchers ~indifferent to call the flop, you would see IP's 0-bet bluffcatcher range getting pushed to ~indifference at a higher fqcy than if OOP only had 2 betting streets left (as in flop XB line).
Thats a really rigid picture of it ... but regardless of OOP's degree of polarity on the XR, the main thing is that when he gets a flop XR in vs a 0-bet, IP loses a lot of equity realization relative to the XB line. and again i just don't see where he's recovering from that.
Or he just can call the minbet and lead turn as if nothing happened, which would develop soonish amongst regs if you try to establish that strategy.
the premium 0-bet hands need to face a high XR fqcy to recover their EV. either that or he OOP needs to XC and lead turn often , where IP then gets the opportunity to play a raise with premiums and regain some value. In order get OOP to do either, we can't protect the 0-bet line with too many strong hands. i dont think IP is going to have enough strong hands that can take advantage of the line's you mentioned if he balances the XB line in a way that makes those strong hands correct to play mixed OTF. In other words i dont think he will able to use a high enough betting fqcy in those lines (even after overbetting) to really punish OOP for XR-X or XR-B-X, or XC-B lines. Also we have to assume OOP would be well prepared for those XR-->giveup spots by working in turn/river XR's etc. we can't just assume he's going to bend over. although wouldnt that be fun ;) ;)
I might be retarded there but I read the thread 5 times and still don't get what you mean by " zero betting "
" . The idea is pretty simple. When you are IP with a range advantage OTF, OTT or OTR you have an option between betting and checking with that part of your range usually. Now instead of just having a strategy where you bet or check, you would use a strategy where you bet or "zero-bet" your whole range. If you choose to "zero-bet" it is now the opponents turn to choose if he wants to call or raise this bet. "
zero bet means to check behind ?
In reality it would mean to bet the minmium , 1bb when you are in position instead of checking back.
The thing I don't understand is how this could ever be beneficial. It feels like this strategy has to be dominated by check back.
You're argument is that it forces OOP to play another round of betting... but it really doesn't. He could play a pure strategy of "call" (and then you're in the exact same spot as you were before. (or if you want to bet 1bb then I guess he could fold a combo some of the time or w/e) However, he gets to reopen the betting whenever he wants. So really, all you've done is give him the option of deciding he now has a class of hands that want to check vs your full range but want to raise vs your "zero bet" range. If such a class doesn't exists, then he simply shrug calls your "zero bet" with his checking range and he's in no worse shape than he was before.
If math isn't your thing then think of it this way... you're playing live vs a drunk guy. You check and he says, "Are you sure? Cause I'm going to check if you do just so you know". If somehow your action weren't binding then worst case scenario you respond, "yeah, I'm good thanks lets see another card". Best case scenario some of the time you say, "well, now that I know you're going to check, I think I'll actually bet." How could that ever be a disadvantage to the sober guy?
this is best post in the thread (by Steve Paul) b/c it's simple:
unless you want to try to argue that charging 1BB more than checking is worth giving OOP an extra strategic option, which i think we've overcomplicated
Yeah, I have to agree with this. This was the something obvious I didn't think of when I made the first post, still it is an interesting play you could use purely for exploitable play.
Be the first to add a comment