Fonzie12
0 points
Thanks for taking the time to calculate the EV, I'm not the best when it comes to that stuff, I do think it's helpful. I think whenever he has 2/3 nuts on the turn, when talking about pots sized bets, we have an immediate fold on the turn with our bluffcatchers right? The ratio should be 5/9 bluffs 4/9 value and this will lead to him being able to continue on the river everytime. That's kind of what I am trying to conceptualize, even though on the turn we were getting 2:1, and had the best hand a third of time, the call is still losing since he can bet his whole range on the river while remaining balanced and we will have zero EV. So now we just lost the entire turn bet we put in. Since no real poker spots are nuts VS air, I want to be able to weigh how much of an advantage the polarized range had over the bluff catcher leading up to the river. I think it's basically more less a function of us not being able to realize all of our equity because of our range disadvantage?
As far as us not wanting him to bet his air, I mean it in the sense that when he doesn't bet, he checks behind and we win the pot. If he has 2/3 nuts and 1/3 air on the river, every bit of that air he checks is causing him to be unbalanced. So when he checks any portion of it, we are are profiting, because he will effectively "claim" the whole pot every time he bets. If he just bet his whole range we would have no good option between calling and folding and have zero EV.
April 16, 2014 | 4:21 p.m.
For sure I get that I am over simplifying it. In the example I think what you said is true, we would still have a break even or zero EV call on the river if he bets all his air, (2/3 value 1/3 air.) But if he does bet all his air on the river, that would mean he never checks behind and we will have essentially lost the entire turn bet we just put in. Even if he only bets half his air on the river, we still lose a good portion of the turn bet we just put in correct?
I'm just trying to get a handle on how the stronger betting range can capture more EV than his equity alone suggests, when he bets the next street in a balanced fashion.
April 16, 2014 | 12:24 a.m.
Ca someone confirm can whether or not this statement is correct? When we are faced with a turn bet, we need to have more equity than the immediate price we are getting to call, assuming that our opponent will bet even some of his air on the river. (assume neither hand will improve for simplicity.) The more of his air he will be bet on river up to the point of being properly balanced, the more equity we need on the turn than the price we are getting. So if we are faced with a pot sized bet on the turn, and think we have 33% percent VS his range, we have a losing call assuming that villain even comes close to betting the right amount of his air on the river?
I have seen the nuts/air game worked out where villain bets 2:1 bluff to value on flop, 5:5 on turn and 2:1 on river, I just want to be able to apply that concept the right way when we aren't dealing with all nuts/air and am understanding it the right way.
Thanks for any help.
April 15, 2014 | 9:45 p.m.
Hi,
Hopefully I'll be able be able to phrase things clearly as I tend to stink at that sort of thing. It has to do with bluff catching over multiple streets. My question is, does the fact that the bettor has 3 streets to bet and drop off bluffs on each street, in a sense an advantage for him? By advantage I mean, as the bluff catcher, is that one of the reasons we often have to fold more on the flop than our immediate equity suggests, even when hand strengths are unlikely to change because of the board texture? I know we cant make our flop decisions based on equity alone, since there are multiple streets to play, and the range we will be up against on the river when the biggest bet goes in has to be considered. Im familiar with the idea of trying to defend to at X percent on each street as a guideline when ranges similar in strength but I'm really concerned with any of that here.
The way I've always looked at it is on certain boards, our opponent will be able to stop us from realizing a lot of our equity so we check fold 44 on T96 often times because of bad playability and his bluffs will have lots of equity. But does he also have a built in advantage of sorts on boards where neither player is likely improve, like AA2, just because he has three streets to bluff?
I think I may be confusing the idea of being able to take advantage of a strong polarized range, and just having the option as the bettor to bluff over 3 streets and drop some off along the way. Thanks for any help.
Can we defend a higher percentage when our overall range is strong simply because more of our hands will have hit the board hard? Or we can defend a lot more of our marginal hands as well because having a strong range will lead to our opponent checking and giving up more often, and good bluffing opportunities on later streets?
June 11, 2014 | 9:28 p.m.