ramifish

So, FriendlyCritter,

do you think it's better in any given spot to try to figure out what his worst bluffcatching hand is and then build your bluffing range from his perspective of your value range as you did in your example (bluffing 10 and not 12 combos)? At least in the spots where it has a remarkable effect, as in the example of Kxx.

Wow thanks!

You have given me more than enough material to work with. I will come back here when I have practiced a little bit on what you just gave me.

I appreciate a lot!

So it's not only the hands we block but the hands villain blocks... It's seems pretty fucking complicated! I will try more easily:

In the hand you mentioned, I see in Flopzilla that against a range of cold call in BB vs BTN he has 20 flush combos on the river, but if we hold the Ac he has only 14! What does it mean? If we have 33 flush combos OTR we should normally bluff with 16 (with a PSB), but when we hold the Ac, how many more combos could we bluff? And if we don't hold it, how many less combos could we bluff? How do you get these two numbers?

Thanks both! Luke,

"Models like 1-0 game or nuts/bluff vs bluffcatcher toy game doesnt account for blocker effects at all so the 1-a solution is only applicable when the bloker effects are neglible.

Yeah, that is pretty much what I intuitively understood. Could you give me a quick example of how a narrow range could be different when holding a value hand and when holding a bluff so that I can have a starting point? I found no much depth on neither Applications of no limit nor HU no limit expert.

Hi friedm, I agree 100% Snowie's ranges are OTR are random. They say that in some place. They also say the evaluation is always correct. And it always seemed pretty fine to me.

Thanks for the message :)

"Or our bet range should have 66% Eq versus range of the opponent (of the river or call river bet)? "

No. Our river bet range should have 70% equity (assuming 3/4 pot) against his worst bluffcatcher, given that our checking worst hands never win (ie, our worst hands are pure air).

If we add less than 30% bluffs to our range because it's not polarized, then he can do better by just folding his worst bluffcatchers and just call with the stronger ones.

I agree that overcards to the mid pair are the best kind of hands in this spot, especially if they don't block much of his calling non showdown value range.

Thanks!

Just finished reading the whole thread, pretty valuable stuff in there!

Regarding lowering your massive multitabling, I would add: If you play less tables you are giving yourself a chance to learn more efficiently WHILE you are playing :)

I also liked your thoughts in having a balanced life outside poker and eventually quitting poker.

And regarding the balance, I think all of us at some point get so absorbed it's crazy. And the two most successful players I have known, the ones who make 6 figures in a month, were the ones thinking 24/7 on poker. They rarely talk about anything else, it's crazy.

Regarding quitting, I have met dozens of professional poker players in person, and NONE of them answered 'yes' to the question: "Do you see yourself playing poker professionally in 5-10 years?"

Me, like you, I have been pro for 7 years, and I have given some serious thought to eventually quitting. My problem is I really don't have a vocation, something that I truly would love doing even if I didn't get paid for it.

Anyway! Nice posts mate...

Peace :)

Here, on the contrary, it suggests to have about 75% river cbet with 55.4% bluffs on a sizing of a little under the pot:

http://gyazo.com/3d162837dbc48004d32418fbfe253c99

This seems wrong I think, but not only that! When you go too see river action by villainm, it suggests a fold of 14.8%!

So how is it posible that in equilibrium we bet more than our fair share of bluffs, and villain calls with almost his entire range???

http://gyazo.com/8ec8fba23ccee951939398eb19207028

Now (please correct me if I am wrong in the previous post)

Why the fuck does Snowie play hands no the river like the following??????

http://gyazo.com/3c61d45846f5472790cbb467d5fac040

This is almost similar to the hand from my example. I modified a little bit the sizings so that Snowie agreed completely on every decision from every player up to the river.

How is it posible that Snowie only shoves for value on the river????

You can see on the right that for the SB player, it suggest to bet A3+ for value, but no bluffs!! I don't understand, shouldn't we bet a few bluff combos here according to game theory?

He guys, I think I finally got it!!!!

I have been struggling for one whole week with this issue not having any satisfactory answer. I read the chapters of MOP and didn't understand a goddamn thing lol

But then bought Expert heads up no limit and the explanation there was a little more comprehensive than the alphabet soup in MOP.

So let me try and confirm if I am right now.

It's all about the worst bluffcatcher in villain's range equity, right?

For example, in the hand I made up, if villain's worst bluffcatching hand is Ax, due to removal effects I am betting 22 combos that beat villain's Ax, ie for value. Suppose Pot=Bet size=Stacks=1, then I should bluff with 11 combos so that villain's Ax has an equity when calling of 33%. So it remains break even.

Now, in my example, sometimes I will valuebet AK and he will have 88 and I will lose, but it really doesn't matter to the amount of bets in my range, right? It really doesn't matter if I lose, I still bet my 33% dear bluffs!!!

I kind of feel relieved omg :D

Hello Steve! Thanks for step by again!

Ok for simplicity purpose let's assume it's the typical spot where villain has a bunch of bluffcatchers that, if folds all of them we have a profitable bluff with ATC, and if he calls all of them we never bluff.

Let's assume Ax is in the range of 40% to 60% of his river range. That is, if he folds all his Ax I will always bluff, if he calls with all of them, I will never bluff.

So let's say he folds the Ax that block my semibluffing hands like AQ and some AJ maybe (doing the math in my head) and calls the ones that don't block anything, like the rest of Axs. All this is arguable and it's not my point.

My point in the post and all the thread really is:

Should the bluffing frequency be the same when my value combos include hands that will be called and lose (like AK or A8s) as when we bet only pure nuts (let's say AA in this spot)?

Intuitively I think that the answer is no, he will exploit us somehow with his bluffcatchers, bluffcatching more of them or even all of them! But I'm not sure and that's my ultimate question throughout the post! You seem to imply that we should bluff the same but I intuitively disagree!

Thanks! btw your videos are awesome, I loved the 1.A one :D

Hey BigFiszh,

(sorry I don't know how to quote properly)

"That means, we want to add enough bluffs that Villain is break-even with the bottom end of his range. Imagine, we bet pot size on the river (assume all-in, so there´s no chance for re-bluffing). Villain has to call with 50%, otherwise we could bet / bluff with any2. Our goal now is to add as many bluffs that the worst hand in his 50% range is break-even."

You are also assuming villain will have to call 50% on all different runnouts, which is imposible because some will be very good for him and he could call profitably more than 50% and others very bad for him and he will have to fold more than 50%. As you say, sometimes the runnout is so good we bluff our worst made hands, and other times the runnout is so bad we check-fold hands we would have otherwise value bet (J4 on QJ455).

"Our "value-range" obviously is determined by that exact calling-range of Villain (we need 50% against that range(*)), and then we add just enough bluffs that the worst hand in Villain´s range has 0EV-call."

Hmmm... I think I see your point. Your point is the nuts/air situation is a derived one from what I just quoted, right? Because he has 100% bluffcatchers and so he should call with 33% of them (in the typical spot nuts/air 1 PSB).

Now, in a less polarized situation, how would it apply? I am going to make up a spot, the only thing that matters here would be the river:

We 3bet SB vs BTN. Flop AT8r

Value: TT, 88, AT, A8s, AK (AQ is close for 3 streets on multiple runnouts, so for practical purposes it's out and assume we check call AA)
Bluffs: KQ, KJ, QJ, J9s, 97s, 76s

Turn blank 3r

Value: TT, 88, AT, A8s, AK
Bluffs: QJ, J9s, 97s (we give up gutshots)

River another brick 5r

Value shove: TT, 88, AT, A8s, AK (total of 3+3+9+2+12= 29 combos)
Bluff shove: ¿? how many combos?

Assuming villain's calldown range is: AJ, AQ, AT, A8s, 88, A3s, A5s (4bet/calls TT and AK pre)

Hey BigFiszh,

(sorry I don't know how to quote properly)

"That means, we want to add enough bluffs that Villain is break-even with the bottom end of his range. Imagine, we bet pot size on the river (assume all-in, so there´s no chance for re-bluffing). Villain has to call with 50%, otherwise we could bet / bluff with any2. Our goal now is to add as many bluffs that the worst hand in his 50% range is break-even."

You are also assuming villain will have to call 50% on all different runnouts, which is imposible because some will be very good for him and he could call profitably more than 50% and others very bad for him and he will have to fold more than 50%. As you say, sometimes the runnout is so good we bluff our worst made hands, and other times the runnout is so bad we check-fold hands we would have otherwise value bet (J4 on QJ455).

"Our "value-range" obviously is determined by that exact calling-range of Villain (we need 50% against that range(*)), and then we add just enough bluffs that the worst hand in Villain´s range has 0EV-call."

Hmmm... I think I see your point. Your point is the nuts/air situation is a derived one from what I just quoted, right? Because he has 100% bluffcatchers and so he should call with 33% of them (in the typical spot nuts/air 1 PSB).

Now, in a less polarized situation, how would it apply? I am going to make up a spot, the only thing that matters here would be the river:

We 3bet SB vs BTN. Flop AT8r

Value: TT, 88, AT, A8s, AK (AQ is close for 3 streets on multiple runnouts, so for practical purposes it's out and assume we check call AA)
Bluffs: KQ, KJ, QJ, J9s, 97s, 76s

Turn blank 3r

Value: TT, 88, AT, A8s, AK
Bluffs: QJ, J9s, 97s (we give up gutshots)

River another brick 5r

Value shove: TT, 88, AT, A8s, AK (total of 3+3+9+2+12= 29 combos)
Bluff shove: ¿? how many combos?

Assuming villain's calldown range is: AJ, AQ, AT, A8s, 88, A3s, A5s (4bet/calls TT and AK pre)

lol!!! you're taking out so many of my leaks! Yes I would mean IP because OOP we could check call which could have more EV lol but I like the fact that you make me realize how theoretically lousy I am.

BTW I already read Applications, but I am revisiting again from another perspective much more deep, when I first read it in March I was kind of bored and didn't really like the theory. What stakes do you play and pokersite? Maybe you win money from me everyday :) Is it okay if when I revisit Applications part about this topic I come back if I still haven't it sorted out? What other sources do you think are the best to deepen your knowledge on GTO? Any coach on RIO besides Sauce? Any source outside RIO besides Snowie?

"if your range is so depolarized should you really be betting in the first place?"

well I mean, as long as I have a 51% win when called I could bet and be doing nothing wrong, right? Ok ok, I know what you'll say, at least when the bet is all-in :)

In the hand I input to Snowie where it gave me 97% value/3% bluffs it was a 3bet pot and yes it was all-in on the river, but how could it matter otherwise?

I have another examples with Snowie where it is not all-in and still suggest same proportion of bluffs, I don't see how it could matter!

If there was a video in RIO talking about this specific topic I would also appreciate the link :)

Now it's perfectly clear!!!

I didn't see what was the fold frequency at equilibrium, now I see it makes sense for the villain to fold 50% thus making our bluffs even.

Now, I would still add that villain will fold 50% overall at equilibrium, but on different runnouts he will fold different amounts (on a terrible card for his range he will fold close to a 100%, for example, I guess).

Thank you very much for the clear answer Steve, you have my like :)

Hi! I read the whole thread and I appreciate your help. I guess the only way to calculate R when analizing a certain spot would be to estimate it hand by hand (or at least by group hands -pocket pairs, Axo, etc.-), and again it would only be an estimation.

Any else thoughts on these 7 year old book?