The BB is perfectly balanced in this spot, so given that his EV is going to be the same independent of the BU's calling frequency. I think the reason for the confusion is because I expressed something poorly around that time mark - I said "right now the BB is very not indifferent to bluffing because he is losing 6BB given the BU's calling frequency." That should be clarified: if the BB knows that the BU is calling that often, then he shouldn't be bluffing.

So, the EV remains the same because we made a perfectly balanced betting range for the BB in this spot. So, while he may certain parts of his range will have different EVs depending on how often the BU calls, overall his entire range "doesn't care" what the BU does - so his overall EV remains the same. Another way to think about/understand this is like this: the BB is perfectly balanced in this spot, so the BU is indifferent between calling and folding as both have the exact same EVs for the BU. Therefore, the EV of the overall range for the BB remains the same no matter what the BU does.

Does that make sense?

yes,a lot.
Thank you for the reply.

Hello,

I do intend to take this series towards more practical applications. Unfortunately the only way that ZI can practically do this (or the only one I've had in my mind since the start of this series - feel free to make suggestions!) is to approach these spots from the opposite end and work through examples. To clarify, so far we've only been looking over essentially purely theoretical spots/concepts. For more practical applications, the approach would go like this: "You open the BU with 74s and the BB calls. The board is A72r, let's compare the EV of a valuebluff versus the EV of a check back." So in order to do this, I would still use CREV, however now you have to make questionable assumptions about not only the BB's initial range, but how he responds with various parts of his range. I didn't want to start with the latter because I wanted to start off I wanted to show valuebluffing as a legitimate, purely theoretical concept instead of picking what would have seemed like a random spot and poking around (which, as an aside would have been an almost necessarily exploitative approach).

More practical applications: noted, a lot of people have been asking for this so the next video in this series will deal with more practical spots.

1. In general, the earlier in the hand the more applicable valuebluffing is, because equities of relevant ranges run closer. When thinking about abstract concepts like this, if something is unclear just picture the more extreme cases. So here, obviously it makes zero sense to ever valuebluff the river, whereas basically all hands you would open preflop are valuebluffs in a sense.

Why did I choose a turn spot then for the series? Mostly because I wanted to discuss a spot where purely theoretically, without having to deal with potential issues of assumptions - basically I didn't want to pick some flop spot and get derailed about who does what with what range.

1. The example you give seems more like a thin valuebet than a valuebluff - you are betting for protection, yes, but most of the time you are called you're actually ahead.

The second part of your question is currently a bit too general for me to be able to answer here, but to start - why do you think it doesn't make sense for villain to develop a turn c/r range in that spot?

Glad you enjoyed, suit up!