DeucesCracked Featured Posts Feed
Every poker player can remember improvements in his thought process. We know how important the decision-making part of poker is, so we have the tendency to jump straight to it. When we started with poker, it was: “I have an Ace and a Jack, and those are pretty good so i’m going all in!!” Then later it became, “I know hand strength is relative, so I’m thinking about his hand… and I think mine’s better…. so I’m going all in!” Then eventually it became, “Hand strength is relative, and mine’s better, and I think he can call me with worse hands, so I’m going all in!”. Hopefully you can see how the thought process gets filled out and our decisions eventually become better.
Many (all?) players cut short the process of gathering and evaluating information before the decision making stage. Essentially, they reach an amount of information that lets them solve basic situations, they get comfortable using that information, then they get lost whenever a new situation comes up that requires information they haven’t been accumulating. Let’s talk about one of these spots now.
A wise friend, Ben, got in a discussion with me over a hand. Late at night, in a HU live game (the kind we’ve played thousands of for exactly zero dollars) he had made a loose call against my river shove. I was bluffing, and lost. I desperately tried to explain to him how my range crushed his hand and how bad of a call it was. He replied: “That may be, but I’m not playing against a range. I’m playing against your hand. And you either have it or you don’t.”
You either have it or you don’t.
Hmmm.
So what about ranges? Do those not matter? Won’t good players play a number of hands in the same fashion? With different intents?
Damn straight they will, but it’s the last sentence that matters. “With different intents.”
Let’s consider the river. When somebody bets the river, it is invariably for one of two reasons: 1) to get value from a worse hand, or 2) to make a better hand fold. There is no in between, no two-way bet here. It’s only one of the two. And the other guy knows damn well whether he’s bluffing or not. However, most handreaders seem to ignore that obvious question– is he bluffing me or value betting me?– and proceed straight to the “how does my hand do against his range?” question. Well, the truth is that he has two different ranges. One is for value betting and one is for bluffing. If you can figure out which one is more likely, you can test your hand against that range. It’s only if you think that each is equally likely that you have to evaluate your hand against his entire composite range. Guess what? It’s pretty damn rare when it’s equally likely someone is valuebetting you or bluffing you.
I’m going to give you three examples.
First was a hand between CTS and Ike (i think its Ike, somebody correct me if I’m wrong). Both players are 230ish bb deep). Cole (extremely loose and aggressive) raises UTG, Ike calls on the button with 66. Flop comes down As7c6d. Cole bets, Ike makes a raise in position, and cole calls. The turn is a Ts. Cole checks, Ike bets (for value), and cole shoves all in (a little less than 200bb on top).
Second example can be read here: http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showthread.php?t=196036&highlight=punketty. Punketty, extremely loose and aggressive, c/r the turn on a Ad9cQh8h board. Hero holds AhQd.
Third example, and most classic example of all, can be read here: http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showthread.php?t=38&highlight=mahatma. Villain is Prahlad Friedman, extremely loose and aggressive. Prah c/c flop on a KTx board, leads for pot on a blank turn, and shoves an A river. Hero holds AK.
In every single one of these threads, the first 5-10 people who jump in say the same thing: “you have a strong hand against a tricky, aggressive opponent. you can’t fold!” The gut reaction is to address our hand vs his hand range on the whole.
Now, heres an exercise for you guys to try at home– Try to decide in each example, whether or not CTS, Punketty, and Prahlad are more likely to be bluffing or value betting. If you decide value betting, then try to decide how our hand stands up against his value betting range. Voila, you are better at handreading.
PS: nobody said this would be easy. and if they did, i didnt get the memo.
good luck from thailand
A
Baluga Bay
my brain just dun gone and gots bigger. Seriously, great article. light bulb!
Excellent article.
I'd like to ask you something that's off topic to the main drift of the article...
"Let’s consider the river. When somebody bets the river, it is invariably for one of two reasons: 1) to get value from a worse hand, or 2) to make a better hand fold. There is no in between, no two-way bet here. It’s only one of the two."
Couldn't a player bet the river with say, top-pair weak-kicker, and against certain opponents in certain situations, expect to sometimes get called with a worse hand, thereby making the river bet a value bet, while at the same time expect to make a better hand fold sometimes, thereby making the river bet an attempted bluff?
Let's say I raise preflop with A5 and my opponent just calls with KK. The board comes A-Q-3 with a flush draw. I bet and he calls. The turn is a blank. I bet and he calls. The river is a queen. I bet.
He might call, hoping I had a smaller pocket pair or a missed flush draw. Then my bet was a value bet.
Now let's say my opponent has AT. Sometimes he would fold the river, thinking I must have a better ace than his, or a queen. So now my bet was a bluff.
Both those hands are within my opponents range, given how he played the hand. So, is it really true that "There is no in between, no two-way bet here."?
Tommy
the artical is 2 words to each line for me tough to read is it ment to be like that or supposed to be?
Excellent article.
I'd like to ask you something that's off topic to the main drift of the article...
Couldn't a player bet the river with say, top-pair weak-kicker, and against certain opponents in certain situations, expect to sometimes get called with a worse hand, thereby making the river bet a value bet, while at the same time expect to make a better hand fold sometimes, thereby making the river bet an attempted bluff?
Let's say I raise preflop with A5 and my opponent just calls with KK. The board comes A-Q-3 with a flush draw. I bet and he calls. The turn is a blank. I bet and he calls. The river is a queen. I bet.
He might call, hoping I had a smaller pocket pair or a missed flush draw. Then my bet was a value bet.
Now let's say my opponent has AT. Sometimes he would fold the river, thinking I must have a better ace than his, or a queen. So now my bet was a bluff.
Both those hands are within my opponents range, given how he played the hand. So, is it really true that "There is no in between, no two-way bet here."?
Tommy
If I understand correctly you're saying that a bet can be both a bluff and valuebet because sometimes people will fold better, and sometimes they'll call worse depending entirely on their state of mind at the moment, right?
But is it really a two-way bet, then? Or is it one of those bets where you bet because you hate the other options and being aggressive is often a good thing? If it's that, I don't think you could call it a two-way bet. You could call it a bet for the sake of betting, I think.
@Baluga:
You're saying that we should basically factor in the chance he's bluffing. Isn't that something we always do when determining a river betting range? At least it's something I always do. Depending on the hand I'll either see if I think it's likely he's bluffing (and I'll look at if my hand even beats his bluffs, of course); sometimes I'll usually set up a range he's valuebetting - and then determine how often he needs to be bluffing for a call to be correct and see if I make that against how often I think he's bluffing.
I might be missing something, but this article reads as 'people's bluff frequency can be independent of their valuebetting range'.
Tommy-
first, its a pleasure to dialogue with someone as respected and thoughtful as you.
That said, two-way bets don't exist. Let me try to explain concisely using your example.
If have A5 on an AQ32Q, there are times when I can bet for value. There are other times when I can bet as a bluff, even vs the same opponent. However, in any one instant, it is impossible to bet and expect him to call KK and fold AT. If I have a wild, aggro image then bettubg for value is probably right. If i have a tight, in-line image, then betting as a bluff is decent. However, there will always be one right intention.
And in this respect, your example is right on point with the article--it doesnt matter as much what can happen in a variety of hypothetical spots, what matters is the cards our opponent is holding and the way they're going to play them. Hes either calling KK and AT or hes folding them both, and we need to be good enough to have a pretty good idea which is which.
Tommy-
first, its a pleasure to dialogue with someone as respected and thoughtful as you.
That said, two-way bets don't exist. Let me try to explain concisely using your example.
If have A5 on an AQ32Q, there are times when I can bet for value. There are other times when I can bet as a bluff, even vs the same opponent. However, in any one instant, it is impossible to bet and expect him to call KK and fold AT. If I have a wild, aggro image then bettubg for value is probably right. If i have a tight, in-line image, then betting as a bluff is decent. However, there will always be one right intention.
And in this respect, your example is right on point with the article--it doesnt matter as much what can happen in a variety of hypothetical spots, what matters is the cards our opponent is holding and the way they're going to play them. Hes either calling KK and AT or hes folding them both, and we need to be good enough to have a pretty good idea which is which.
BW,
Everything you said makes perfect sense. It seems that what we've isolated here is that lots of times when I make a bet like in the example I gave, I do not "have a pretty good idea which is which," in other words, my intent, in my mind, is unclear. That's because I am oftentimes uncertain what my image is in my opponent's mind at any given time, and also because I oftentimes have no idea what my opponent has. But it's not for lack of trying to know these things!
Tommy
Nice article. I think my head just managed to explode.
Now, heres an exercise for you guys to try at home– Try to decide in each example, whether or not CTS, Punketty, and Prahlad are more likely to be bluffing or value betting. If you decide value betting, then try to decide how our hand stands up against his value betting range. Voila, you are better at handreading.
Wait, I'm confused. Take the first hand. How can you decide if CTS is more likely to be value betting vs. bluffing if you don't assign ranges? I thought the way you figured out which was more likely was by enumerating the ranges, like "he'd value c/r with hands {1, 2, 3, 4, 5} and he'd bluff c/r with hands {6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20} so he's 4x as likely to be bluffing."
I mean, when you say "he's more likely to do X than Y" don't you mean exactly "his range for X contains more hands than his range for Y"?
So, let's say villain gets to the final action with range {R}, which we can split up into value + bluffs: {R} = {V} + {B}. I think the point of this article is that vs. good tricky villains, people often think |B|/|V| is bigger than it actually is. And you want us to think something like "well, villain has a decent idea of where *we* are, so if |B|/|V| was really that big, he'd be a spew monkey" and then re-adjust our idea of how exactly {R} gets split up into {B} and {V}. Is that right?
If that's right, it seems like (even after we think about how often they *should* be value betting vs. bluffing), we should still actually try to spell out {B} and {V} explicitly, because no matter how much villain might want |V|/|B| to be big, he still has to actually *have* the value hands often enough, and he has to have the bluff hands infrequently enough.
Am I right, or am I way off base here?
poin-
thats a super, super complicated way of trying to deal with this. what's samo's range for bluffing in the AQ98 board? its basically nonexistant, yet, people make the mistake of comparing samo's TOTAL range (stemming from his loose preflop play) with his actual range in that scenario, which is almost entirely composed of hands that beat AQ.
also poin, this statement:
"Wait, I'm confused. Take the first hand. How can you decide if CTS is more likely to be value betting vs. bluffing if you don't assign ranges? I thought the way you figured out which was more likely was by enumerating the ranges, like "he'd value c/r with hands {1, 2, 3, 4, 5} and he'd bluff c/r with hands {6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20} so he's 4x as likely to be bluffing."
is not accurate. The reason being that hes 100% of the time vbetting hand 1-5, whereas his bluff frequency is variable. So, he could be bluffing 0% of the time with hands 6-20, or he could be bluffingi 100% of the time with them, in which case he's 4x as likely to be bluffing. My point is that there's an easier, more reliable way of going about this.
BalugaWhale-
I think this from my first post:
"you want us to think something like "well, villain has a decent idea of where *we* are, so if |B|/|V| was really that big, he'd be a spew monkey" and then re-adjust our idea of how exactly {R} gets split up into {B} and {V}."
was me sort of understanding what you meant in your first response. But now I think you're saying it's even easier: there are some situations where, if we really think about it, we can figure out that his range is almost entirely made up of vbetting hands, so we can just figure out our equity vs. them. And that can be true even if his vbetting range is quite narrow. Yes?
Also, your second post is obviously right. I left out the weighting in my post because I was trying to simplify things. Couldn't you tell by how simple my post was? 
This article sucks imo.
"Well, the truth is that he has two different ranges. One is for value betting and one is for bluffing. If you can figure out which one is more likely, you can test your hand against that range. It’s only if you think that each is equally likely that you have to evaluate your hand against his entire composite range. Guess what? It’s pretty damn rare when it’s equally likely someone is valuebetting you or bluffing you."
1. He has one betting-range on the river. Of course, that range has two parts/segments: the hands that he bets for value and the hands that he bets as a bluff.
2. Do you mean with "which one is more likely" which part of the range is bigger / contains more combos? It's really weird to say "how likely is a range?". Personally I dont know what it means at all! Cf. saying "how likely is it that he has a set" or "how likely is it that he is betting a better hand"? I conclude that your use of the word "range" is very unusual in this article.
3. So let's say it is "more likely" that he is betting for value (that's almost always the case for a good player). Now you conclude that you beat only 25% of that betting-for-value-range. If I understand you correctly, you write that it's not necessary to think about his total betting-range, because it's more likely ("not equally likely") he is betting for value or something. So you fold, because he pots the river and you have to win 33% so 25% is not enough... But we both know that this is bullshit: if he bluffs only sometimes it's an easy call.
If your opponent bets the river, you are by definition playing against his complete betting-range.
I think what you want to say is something like this: at every decision point, the range of your opponent changes. He opens 15% utg (range changes from random to 15%), cbets 70% of that 15%, and reraises 30% of that 70% of 15%. Dont make the mistake to think that if the range op your opponent is loose at some point, his range is necessarily loose at another point. In some spots, players have no bluffs in their ranges etc.
I think poin was getting at the same points with his posts. Usually I like your articles Baluga, but this one is not good at all imo. Your use of the terms is non-standard and confusing (without good reasons afai can see) and it's not very clear what the message is.
You aren't saying that we should choose whether he is more likely to be betting for value or as a bluff, then eliminating the bluff (or value bet) range, right? If we decide that he is almost never bluffing, we figure how we fare versus his Vbetting range, then factor in the discounted chance that he is bluffing, right? For instance, he is most likely Vbetting, I am 25% versus that range, but there is a 25% chance he is bluffing, of which I am 100% against. Therefore I am .75(.25) + .25(1.00) = 44% to win when I call. It would be a mistake to not factor in some chance of him bluffing if indeed there is a chance, right?
hey teamdamsko,
sorry you didnt like the article. Let me see if i cant clarify my point a little bit--
The actual math of handreading is more or less impossible to do. Let's say im facing a bet that gives me 1.4:1 on the turn. If he has hand X, I have 10% equity. If he has hand Y, I have 40% equity. If he has hand Z, I have 70% equity. So, if he has hand X 50% of the time, hand Y 20% of the time, and hand Z 30% of the time, am i getting odds to call? I can't do that off the top of my head. Maybe you can, and maybe some people can, but I'm almost positive that most every successful poker player does this more by "feel" than by actual calculation. Now let's move to the river.
Obviously on the river he has one large composite hand range. In that range are two separate ranges-- one for value betting and one for bluffing. We agree on that. However, my point is that in the midst of this, he actually only has one hand. And its our job to figure out, to the best of our ability, what actual hand he has. When we look at it in theory, he should show up with a bluff a certain percentage and a strong hand a certain percentage. However, we also need to realize that he only shows up with ONE hand each hand. So how do we determine more accurately which hand he has? By starting with the "is he v-betting or bluffing" question and moving on from there.
Rarely is it the case that someone's entire range is ONLY value betting or ONLY bluffing. That said, I see people screw up weighting those ranges so significantly, that I think it's far easier to start from the question of intent and proceed to the question of weighted ranges, as opposed to skipping the first question and proceeding to the second.
Hopefully that makes more sense.
PS: I wrote everything but the last paragraph of this response a little tipsy, so if its awful I can try again later to make it make more sense.
colonel mustard-
of course. The point of the article is to say that if you try to weight the range before you identify likely intent, you often mess up the range weighting significantly.
Thank you. I have been applying this idea lately and it has been quite helpful.
Just joined today. One of first articles i read. And right from begining - on river beting only bluffing or trying to get value. Its not tru at all. You can make bet to block your opoent possible big bluff. You can bet for your image purposes. In hu sng you can make loose bet on river even if you almost know for sure you will be caled simply to set up your opoent for later when blinds will be biger and desicions more important for bouth of you. So... dont make so radical statements - its stpid.
piranija-
a few things
first, I'm not dealing with SNGs here in which it might be correct to play badly early on in order to win later when it counts. I'm talking about a cash game where its generally correct to play well all the time.
As for betting so as not to get bluffed, I don't believe this is a very legitimate reason. If you think youre opponent is likely to bluff a lot when you check, then you should check-call. If you think your opponent is only likely to value bet if you check, then you should check fold. If you have a hand that has no showdown value (say, 87 on a K9642 board)you're not betting to avoid being bluffed, youre betting to make a better hand fold.
There is a third reason for betting, called capitalization of dead money, which applies any time we bet any street ( to varying degrees), but it is usually a secondary reason and not a primary one like valuebetting or bluffing.
ok, thanx for answer. Its wery stright forward aproach but if its your way to see river bets - what ever works
My brain is trying to process this, but Im not sure I fully understand.I get the point that we cant assume he would be bluffing with 100% of his range that he got to the river with,but still how do we decide how likely he is to be bluffing? You mean we need to try and figure out a bluffing % and then assign a vbetting range which he will bet 100% of the time, and weigh them according to that?
Just joined today, first article I've read in this forum. Thank you, it was very insightful.
Disregarding the nitpicking about "complete ranges" and "split ranges", I think it's just useful to have another way to think about handreading. This concept of first asking yourself the question of "intent" before evaluating your opponent's complete range can only help the process.
ok, thanx for answer. Its wery stright forward aproach but if its your way to see river bets - what ever works
thats the whole point...its straightforward, which means its easy, which means $$$
Interesting article Baluga.
I wonder how does the idea of merging your ranges on the river fits in your view of the subject. Sometimes people value bet extremely thinly on the river in order to merge their ranges between pure value bets and bluffs. That should allow us in theory to be able to bluff more frequently..Let me know what you think..
hey gazamat,
this is why people who merge their ranges are so hard to play against. It becomes very difficult to ascertain whether or not someone is bluffing us or valuebetting us, and we have to move straight to the "what are his value and bluff percentages" which is a much more difficult question. However, there are times when its very hard to merge a range because it would simply be too thin-- cole's hand on the A67T board is unlikely to be a bluff, and its equally as unlikely to be a hand like A7. Does that make sense?
we have to move straight to the "what are his value and bluff percentages"
Yes I agree with that. However, it is obviously extremely tough to even estimate these percentages. Could you give some exanmples of some ways you use (certain stats correlations, backtrack actions on previous streets..gameflow and history obviously, ) in order to estimate these percentages. Have you done certain post analysis of sessions/hands with the known tools to estimate these frequencies in specific situations or to assign a very general estimated ratio for a certain specific player or a player type? I believe that pot odds in such decisions are overestimated and that is why I am very interested in your ways to better estimate the frequencies of a player in specific situations and in general. Thanks in advance for your input )
As for betting so as not to get bluffed, I don't believe this is a very legitimate reason.
Have you read the mathematics of poker? If not you should certainly check it out. One of the interestings things that can be found in there is a version of a simplified poker game with proof that blockbetting some % of the time on the final street is a more optimal solution then betting the same amount. Since the idea behind a blockbet is trying to stop your opponent from bluffing you, it's reasonable to asume that this in the real game of poker this can also be a legitimate reason.
This is obviously a very theoretic argument: so don't ask me when en how to do this 
trying to understand the cts hand in relation to your article. I assume you are saying his bluffing frequency is very low on this board. Why is it so unlikely that a tricky lag would bluff here (especially if it might be possible to fold out even sets)?
TeamDamsko said it in a not very nice way, but he is correct. Saying someone have 2 handranges makes no sense at all. U can have a random handrange, but not 2 ranges. And introducing "intention" is not helping us when we try to make the best decision.
The reason a computer still have a hard time beating humans in many forms of poker is not because the computer have a hard time with different intentions, its just that the math is 2 complex.
Your friends Clint Eastwoodian comment about u only having 1 hand takes poker 30 years back in time.
isnt a block bet sort of a two way bet ?
I didn't understand this article when I first read it. In truth, I still don't really, but what I know with 100% certainty is that since reading it, the question "Is he value betting or bluffing?" has become a standard go-to question for me in lots of spots, and it has really, really helped. So while I still don't grasp the full technicalities of BW's article, on a simple "common sense" basis it is gold.
I haven't read everything, but the first and last hands posted seem like extremely easy calls. In the last one villain probably turns up with more air than value betting hands also (esp if he plays QJ like this--the potential vast majority of his value betting range) because villain probably recognizes that calling an overbet on this card is fairly difficult and your hand rarely includes an A...
The 2nd one seems like an easy shove two given that the turn brought a backdoor FD, but i can see reason for debate here (esp given you have Ah).
hey man,
they seem like easy calls. but they're not. thats the point.
Andrew
I can see the comments but not the article. What's wrong?
I can see the comments but not the article. What's wrong?
What browser?
I can see the comments but not the article. What's wrong?
+1...Windows Explorer (happens on 2 different PCs)
I liked this article a lot, may I try and rephrase your logic for those that seem confused, correct me if I missed your point.
Let's start with a simple reverse probability problem:
if one bag (a) contains 100 balls, 80% black 20% white
if one bag (b) contains 100 balls, 20% black 80% white
if we have a serie of balls drawn randomly from ONE unknown bag, and the serie is for examble (b,w,w,w,b,w,w,b,w), what are the odds that it came from bag (a)...
That's the same decision we face in poker, we have a pattern (serie) and must assign the probability that it came from bag (a) (bluff range) or bag (b) (value bet).
Back to poker then, simply looking at a range until the last action, one should NOT consider the whole range equal. Maybe vilain could have gotten there with a busted draw but would only bluff 1/4th of the time. On the other hand he will lead a set 95% of the time... etc
Instead of deciding the % of hands hero beats in the whole range, we should try and weight in the probability of each hand WITHIN that range. Because it would take way too much time to consider EACH hand in the range in the equaton, we forget about it for a second, think about what strength we represented, opponent's tendancy/flow etc and decide HOW OFTEN vilain would bluff/Semi bluff in this spot with a hand that missed.
Then and only then we can think about how many times he got there with a made hand and how often he got there without a real hand according to the range we assigned previously.
Many times for example vilain will only represent a set, his range until then is much wider, and vilain is known to bluff a lot, so on a basic thinking level we should call, but in this case the spot for vilain is terrible for bluffing, and so even if he is very polarized we must forget about the range and give him credit.
I hope I didn't side track too much, it's nice to read you and watch your videos Baluga, I've played you on FTP quite a bit in 2006/7 and getting into your head is most insightful, thanks!
Nicolas
i read this quickly, and this looks honestly phenomenal. may link people to this in the future.
thanks a lot,
Andrew
Geez thanks glad you found it interesting!
great discussion here
someone remind me why I ever read/post on 2p2 anymore compared to here?
Baluga, I had a question about this hand as I feel like it fits in with the discussion in this article. My first instinct was that it's an easy call, but thinking about his range led me to fold.
In a $1-$3NL, a guy that just sat at the table limps from middle position. Hero raises to $12 with Ah Qh from the cutoff. Button calls. Limper calls. 3 players take a flop of 8h 5s 2h. Limper checks, hero bets $16, button folds. The limper check-raises to $46. Hero calls. The turn brings the Ac. Villain checks and hero bets 75$ into a pot of about $125. Villain check-raises all-in to about $240. Hero tanks for a long time and folds. Villain shows 4-6 offsuit and takes down the pot.
Ok so here are my thoughts on the hand. Against a complete unknown in a lower level no limit game, very rarely will a player put his whole stack in without 2-pair or better. The hand range I put him on included 2 pair, but more heavily weighted towards sets. After the hand I realized that it seems like c/r the turn is a weird line with a set as perhaps most opponents would tend to lead the turn after c/r the flop. But again I have no read on this opponent. I was getting about 2.7 to 1 on a call, but against sets and some combos of 2-pair a call seems incorrect. So my question is, against an unknown, can I include enough big draws and bluffs in his range to make a call here profitable? Am I playing like a complete nit here or is folding not that bad? After thinking it through, it seems close.
Baluga, I had a question about this hand as I feel like it fits in with the discussion in this article. My first instinct was that it's an easy call, but thinking about his range led me to fold.
In a $1-$3NL, a guy that just sat at the table limps from middle position. Hero raises to $12 with Ah Qh from the cutoff. Button calls. Limper calls. 3 players take a flop of 8h 5s 2h. Limper checks, hero bets $16, button folds. The limper check-raises to $46. Hero calls. The turn brings the Ac. Villain checks and hero bets 75$ into a pot of about $125. Villain check-raises all-in to about $240. Hero tanks for a long time and folds. Villain shows 4-6 offsuit and takes down the pot.
Ok so here are my thoughts on the hand. Against a complete unknown in a lower level no limit game, very rarely will a player put his whole stack in without 2-pair or better. The hand range I put him on included 2 pair, but more heavily weighted towards sets. After the hand I realized that it seems like c/r the turn is a weird line with a set as perhaps most opponents would tend to lead the turn after c/r the flop. But again I have no read on this opponent. I was getting about 2.7 to 1 on a call, but against sets and some combos of 2-pair a call seems incorrect. So my question is, against an unknown, can I include enough big draws and bluffs in his range to make a call here profitable? Am I playing like a complete nit here or is folding not that bad? After thinking it through, it seems close.
Why bet the turn if you plan on folding to a shove? I think that is the mistake you made. You should know why you are betting the turn, and I don't think you did.
Home → Poker Blogs → Featured Posts → Value Ranges, Bluff Ranges, and why handreading can be so damn hard
Questions or comments? Email us at support@deucescracked.com or connect with us on Twitter.
You are here. DeucesCracked videos provide a structured way to increase your online poker winnings and reduce tilt.
We have a FREE 7 day trial, so you can see for yourself.
101-level poker videos for free. Tournament and cash game videos.
keepyourchips.com
One on one coaching from DeucesCracked instructors.
deucescracked.com/coaching
The easiest way to share hands on forums, IM, or email.
thehandconverter.com
Get money back for playing online poker.
rakeback.deucescracked.com
Terms of Use &
Privacy Policy
© 2010 DeucesCracked.com All Rights Reserved.
Reply to Topic
Reply w/Quote
