Profitable is unlikely but the a solver should have most of these close to 0. Solvers really have little to no opinion on bluff catching because the math dictates that these hands lose the pot. Sometimes some combo will win between 2-5 percent of the pot due to card removal but in general the bluffing frequency is the most important aspect of bluff catching. On the bluff raise node, it’s tougher to execute in a Zone game because it’s a ratio of value to bluff and the number of bluffing of available bluffing combos is going to quite large. AK is definitely a candidate here but I’d prefer to use easier to count combos.

I mean generically folding 2p at these sprs is bad without a crazy 4-straight 4-flush runout. On the preflop play, I’m guessing just -EV because of how weak this hand is and the ability to blunder post (like this one).

Bluff raising is really a pretty small part of the game tree somewhere between 1-5 percent given oop sizing scheme.

Jericho has a 3 part series on river raises being bluffs or value and I want to say he said something like 28% river raise based on 500z pool. Of total game tree but even at 15% river raise frequency would be nice to review some hands.

RunItTw1ce

The bluff-raising frequency is really messy, because it involves -- the range composition -- split ranges small bets get raised more than single bet-size games. It also involves different raise sizes -- the bigger raises have a high ratio of bluffs to value bets than the smaller sizes (but the range size is smaller).

I think in most traditional spots -- the bluff raise is usually around 28% of the value raising region and the value raising region needs to beat (again depending on sizing) somewhere between 2/3rds and 4/5th of the value region.

Given that value bets are usually drawn from the top 1/3rd of the range --
that would imply a highest bluff raising frequencies in a single betsize game is around 3%.

Now if our opponent plays a strategy which caps his hand then the top 1/3rd of the range could be bigger -- in extreme cases maybe the value range is 25% of the time -- we could bluff a 28% ratio so the maximum bluffing frequency would be around 9% of range.

9:00 the turn I don't really see myself calling. Is that a huge ev
loss?

As for the river, what do you think about bluff raising given his
sizing is so often associated with middling strength showdown hands?

It should be pretty close to 0, but I tend to think it's positive with it's showdown value and 7 outs against top pair. K7 or K8 is closer, because it wins less often at showdown.

I don't like bluff-raising because we are repping a narrow range and I'm sure he's aware that his sizing looks weakish.

11:30 is similar as I would bluff raise river more often than call.

So the bluff-raise math here is a little different and involves him over-folding his middle value region. If he does, then raising could also be profitable. The thing is that I think given that's its headsup and things like J8,j9,Q9,QJ,Q8 are all available to bluff and I think lots of players here actually just check Ax on the river at a high clip, so this implies that my call is profitable.

17:30 this seems like a very specific spot involving wide ranges. If it were full ring and you were in slightly earlier position would you still find this call?

You could I guess, but it was really a function of lots of pio sims checking this like QJ or KTo,K9o on these rivers as the OOP player, and I didn't think that most players were going to check these hands, because it looks counterintuitive.

It seems like a lot of your decisions come from the betting sizes of opponents. I noticed a lot of Dvoress' analysis would also center around this. How well does that work when dealing with unknown players who can be all over the place with their sizing?

People fall into patterns with their betsizings and the player pool is still really bad at structuring ranges across different betsizings like a PIO sim in most situations, so I use a lot of betsizing tells day and day out to determine my actions.

It's about 5% random pairs, so you're right it will always be lower with AdQ, then say TdTc, but I think this spot is pretty clearly over 40% bluff so I should still have a profitable call even with the random pairs lowering the equity.

It was readless. Most regs use hotkeys so I expected 1/3rd, 3/4, 150 or some variation of that from most regulars here. The fact it's some weird scrolly amount I think makes it more erratic than a typical river bet here.

Yeh it was a weird amount that came out to 42% or something weird, so I think you're right that they scrolled to it rather than used a hotkey. If it was a reg then my perception is that they scrolled to the exact value they thought their hand was worth, and if they were bluffing they would just press the 2/3 or 3/4 hotkey. For a rec I agree that it was probably a more erratic thought process and could mean absolutely anything!

Thanks, sometimes ti works. Sometimes it doesn't.

T9 and 65 can be around 30 combos and it's hard to name 100 combos of value bets to offset the range size.

Hard not to bluff in some of these spots.