Thanks GT. You also should be between the other names that figure on my presentation.

Hey,

English was my main concern. So glad to hear im not doing so bad..

On the stakes that i play people usually tend to lack on bluffs on way too many runnouts, and i would think that in lower stakes is even worst. The adjustment of overcalling could be very risky if some of your assumptions were wrong. So at least i have very sepcific reads to thrust about i always tend to go for a defensive approach by just not letting him to bluff be better than check.

Hey, glad you liked the video.

I was refering to Sean Leforts videos. Especially his 6max series, and advanced theory principles video. (http://www.runitonce.com/pro-training/videos/?progametype=all&prouser=sean&prolevel=all&order_by=recent)

It's a promise that my english level is going to improve. But anyways poker language is not so difficult. I think i will be able to show the main points of what i think.

I actually think your English level is quite good, you use complicated words, and in paper you present your ideas clearly. you just need work on the pronunciation.

Anyways, It was just an idea that I thought would be cool ^^
Thanks for the answer also

will be waiting for your future videos

Having the straight with the Kc blocker make it more close than it looks at first view. But even that, i think that xCalling is slightly better if opponent is playing a balance strategy. But you could find in practice some cases where you could go for a xRaise here (opponents overcalling your raise, opponents betting really wide for value).

Its easier for non-native people to hear other non-native speakers cause they talk slower.

pretty sure he meant that when you are folding hands that arent pure bluff catchers (when you beat many of his hands in value range) that you can end up making collasal mistake, like when he c/c kq broadway straight and v has flush
as compared to his tpgk hand with 109o and 7 river completes 4 straight, like he should have any value bets you really need to worry about beating. and he doesnt have many bluffs to exploit you with
(if i understood wrongly any one feel free to come in and help me understand better)
felt like it made sense to me

Oh okay got it now, thanks!

Since this topic had a good feedback im thinking on the possibility to make a 3rd part with just hands example..

In most of the spot there always are key regions of his flop cbetting range that will affect our entire approach of what we should do on later streets. If my opponent would be a high cbettor (~65%+) then i should start to worry about defending this river.

On next 2 videos i will show a few hand examples about this key regions on flop cbetting range.

I think it deppends on how ranges are constructed. As Steve explained perfectly in his video, you always should have in mind the concept of indifference and what are you trying to make opponent indifferent for.

Whats the value of villain checking his "bluffs" on 895cdh Kh 2c if im holding hands as [Q6/Q7/J6/J7/JT]:hh ? Seems like the value of him checking back some of his bluffs its not 0. So, if you are trying to make him indifferent between checking and bluffing those hands.. Do you really want to defend exactly 1-a of your entire range ? Because the value of him checking bluffs its not 0.

This is perfectly explain on one of the Sauce Toy Games too. He explains that if you defend the 1-a of your entire range, could be the case that you are defending your air at the river "for not beeing exploited", which has no sense.

If opponents bets 0.5xpot, he is risking 0.5 to win the pot (1) + his bet (0.5), this would be A. So..

a = 0.5 / (1+0.5) = 0.33

We shoul defend 1-a = 1 - 0.33 = 0.66 = 66% of your range (if all your range is beating a bluff).

Thats why i recommended previously see Sean Leforts video, or even Sauce Toy Gamings.

shibulon,

This is the way I understand it...not sure if I'm off here. I will attempt to explain:

Say the pot is $100.

If villain checks back the river with his air, he will beat our 50% air and lose to our 50% bluffcatchers, so his EV is $50.

If villain bluffs with his air and we defend 25% of our range (half of our bluff-catchers), his EV is (.75)(100)+(.25)(-100) = $50, the same as above.

Using the strategy of defending 50% of our bluffcatchers here makes villain indifferent to checking and bluffing, since some of his checks have +EV against our air.

If we defended 50% of our entire range, or all of our bluffcatchers, as you suggested, villain's EV of checking would remain $50, but his EV of bluffing would now be (.5)(100)+(.5)(-100) = $0. This would not make villain indifferent between checking and bluffing as checking would be a dominating option.

Your suggestion seems to attempt to make villain indifferent between bluffing and open-folding, which doesn't work in real time because villain's check-backs have some EV against our air.

One concern I have with my above understanding is that my model makes the assumption that villain's potential river bluffs always beat hero's air on the river, which of course isn't true...in reality the 'air vs air' river check-checks will be won a bit by each player...anyone know how to add this into the indifference equation? Perhaps change the expectation of the check-check river scenarios where both players have 'air' to give 50% expectation to each player?

Nicely explained. Buts yes I understand that.

I should have been more precise with my question. When I said villains range is 50% zero ev bluffs I meant that they are zero ev as a check back.
But I get what your saying and it actually clarified things for me a bit. If villain only has zero ev check back bluffs then we should defend 50% of our entire range. But if villains bluffs are in any way +ev as a check back, then we should only defend 1-a of our bluffcatchers.