---

Poker Video: No Limit Hold'Em by Hielko (Mid Stakes)

My bad, you are right. It can also be used to calculate how likely he is to be bluffing.

That said, I still don't understand how you got the result in your original post
If we assume that 50% of players only 4bet the top 10% of hands to call it off and the other 50% of players 4bet every single time and call a shove with 10% of hands, then I get the following result.
Once we get 4bet, the probability that villain is the type of player who bluffs is 0.5/(0.5+0.1*0.5)=50/55. Therefore there's a 0.9*50/55= 82% chance he's bluffing. This is close to what you got, but less confusing to me


More importantly though, I'm not convinced this is really the best way to go about it. If all I know about villain is that he's a reg, I just assume his bluffing frequency is that of an average reg. It's hard to know how villain responds to the first 4bet, but I'm not sure if we gain anything by dividing the player pool into groups of regs who bluff at different frequencies and using stochastics.
If I had to guess, I would say shoving K7s is slightly profitable, but I don't expect to take it down 80% of the time.
Thanks

Time Link to 00:22:02

So whats ur reasoning for 4beting with 10s? Isnt it much better to 4B Jam to get him to fold his equity jamming hands. I mean if he folds KQ,AQ etc. when we Jam but ships X percent when we 4B small isnt it better to ship? Just curious Thanks!

So whats ur reasoning for 4beting with 10s? Isnt it much better to 4B Jam to get him to fold his equity jamming hands. I mean if he folds KQ,AQ etc. when we Jam but ships X percent when we 4B small isnt it better to ship? Just curious Thanks!

No that would be terrible. He can 5bet bluff hands that we have totally dominated (small PP's, Axs) and it would also hurt our 4bet/bluffing range if we remove part of our value range from it.

Time Link to 00:33:45

Isn't it +ev to call with 98s here? You are deeper a bit. Is it a fold normally vs a tight UTG opener?

Time Link to 00:15:30

I see that you are CBetting quite big overall, on dry boards too like the A88 board on table 4 (also when you hit trips on Q55 at the beginning of the video).

I usually bet small on these boards whether it is for value or as a bluff.

Can you explain your logic behind it?
Is it to look bluffy or just to get max value from Ax type of hands? The idea behind a smallish bet (50-60% pot) is that they will peel once or twice with any pair on such a board.

Time Link to 00:25:59

Here again you are talking about bet sizing.
This time you bet smaller on an dry board saying that if he folds he folds to any bet sizing which I agree.

And to come back to my previous post I would bet all these dry boards like this as bluff and for value. However I would also do this vs a reg whereas you are saying that you would bet 10 into 12 if villain was a reg.
Really like to know what's your thinking on this!

Isn't it +ev to call with 98s here? You are deeper a bit. Is it a fold normally vs a tight UTG opener?

I don't like to call here because we will be oop or get squeezed a lot with two players behind us. And even when that doesn't happen it's pretty marginal against the average UTG range.

Here again you are talking about bet sizing.
This time you bet smaller on an dry board saying that if he folds he folds to any bet sizing which I agree.

And to come back to my previous post I would bet all these dry boards like this as bluff and for value. However I would also do this vs a reg whereas you are saying that you would bet 10 into 12 if villain was a reg.
Really like to know what's your thinking on this!

I basically only try cheap bluffs against fush/unkown players on dry boards. Against regulars this makes it easier for them to to play back against your cbets, and since you are bluffing so often on dry boards you are not really losing value if you bet bigger.

I basically only try cheap bluffs against fush/unkown players on dry boards. Against regulars this makes it easier for them to to play back against your cbets, and since you are bluffing so often on dry boards you are not really losing value if you bet bigger.

Interesting. Don't you think regs will catch up with this and play back at you with the same frequency than if you were to bet smaller? In which case that becomes more expensive since, as you said, our range is weighted towards bluff on Q55 or A88 boards?

Would you do this on higher limits too? i.e do you think that regs up to NL200 won't notice and won't play back at us when we bet big?

EDIT: Would you bet big regardless of being IP or OOP vs a reg?

No that would be terrible. He can 5bet bluff hands that we have totally dominated (small PP's, Axs) and it would also hurt our 4bet/bluffing range if we remove part of our value range from it.

I understand that but we can still have a 4B bluffing range we balance our jamming range with AQ,AK sometimes. So we are shipping 7s-Js since AQ is close to a flip vs those hands also KQ. And we 4B small with our complete bluffs which is balanced with AA, KK,QQ, also AKx percentage of the time.
So we are fully balanced in that department. As for your comment about him folding sml pps when we ship lol that rarely happens. TBH if you have a laggy image as u do probably never happens 100bb deep tbh. Atleast for me it seems, cause guys keep callign there baby pps putting me on bluffs, AK . Ive even had guys call with QKo putting myself on those small pps i was talking about earlier... And yes they will also call with Axs a percentage of the time if they think you have alot of bluffs in your range. I duno maybe its spew but I FEEL like i get guys to spew with this stradegy wayy more often than I am spewing... let me know what you think.

Interesting. Don't you think regs will catch up with this and play back at you with the same frequency than if you were to bet smaller? In which case that becomes more expensive since, as you said, our range is weighted towards bluff on Q55 or A88 boards?

The bigger we bet, the worse odds they get on plays like floating. When we bet bigger we can simply bluff more often from a fundamental mathematical perspective.

Would you do this on higher limits too? i.e do you think that regs up to NL200 won't notice and won't play back at us when we bet big?

EDIT: Would you bet big regardless of being IP or OOP vs a reg?

Yes and yes.

I understand that but we can still have a 4B bluffing range we balance our jamming range with AQ,AK sometimes. So we are shipping 7s-Js since AQ is close to a flip vs those hands also KQ. And we 4B small with our complete bluffs which is balanced with AA, KK,QQ, also AKx percentage of the time.
So we are fully balanced in that department. As for your comment about him folding sml pps when we ship lol that rarely happens. TBH if you have a laggy image as u do probably never happens 100bb deep tbh. Atleast for me it seems, cause guys keep callign there baby pps putting me on bluffs, AK . Ive even had guys call with QKo putting myself on those small pps i was talking about earlier... And yes they will also call with Axs a percentage of the time if they think you have alot of bluffs in your range. I duno maybe its spew but I FEEL like i get guys to spew with this stradegy wayy more often than I am spewing... let me know what you think.

No, I totally disagree and I'm sure it's not an optimal strategy. You are simply way more likely to get action from worse if you 4bet small. Sure, sometimes people do stupid shit like calling with small pp's, but that would be a terrible play that you shouldn't see very often from good players. 5bet shoving small pp's on the other hand is totally fine if you are an aggressive 4better, so you should see it way more often. You are simply killing the value of TT by shoving.

you seem to have a good read on that TimStone guy hehe...

very good videos from you sir, u def. know wat u r doing...

The bigger we bet, the worse odds they get on plays like floating. When we bet bigger we can simply bluff more often from a fundamental mathematical perspective.

This is only part of the truth. It's true from a GTO point of view if villain never tries to exploit you and always plays GTO based on his hand and your bet size. However, vs players that will try to exploit you, they will realize that your range is equally wide regardless of your bet size so they should play back at you with the same wide range regardless of how big you bet. They will also realize that by betting bigger with a weak overall range all you accomplish is stick more money into the pot with a weak range so they win more money when they play back at you -> they should play back at you more often in those spots. It's kind of like bet big to look scary which obv only works vs people who are not aware of ranges. Also, it's the same concept as to why we raise smaller on the button usually compared to UTG. We have weaker range on the button so we expect to get played back more and lose more pots when we get played back at thus raise smaller. Raising big on the button will not hide the fact that you still open a wide range so villain should not play back at you less often if they're looking at your HUD stats.

This is only part of the truth. It's true from a GTO point of view if villain never tries to exploit you and always plays GTO based on his hand and your bet size. However, vs players that will try to exploit you, they will realize that your range is equally wide regardless of your bet size so they should play back at you with the same wide range regardless of how big you bet. They will also realize that by betting bigger with a weak overall range all you accomplish is stick more money into the pot with a weak range so they win more money when they play back at you -> they should play back at you more often in those spots. It's kind of like bet big to look scary which obv only works vs people who are not aware of ranges. Also, it's the same concept as to why we raise smaller on the button usually compared to UTG. We have weaker range on the button so we expect to get played back more and lose more pots when we get played back at thus raise smaller. Raising big on the button will not hide the fact that you still open a wide range so villain should not play back at you less often if they're looking at your HUD stats.

+1
If we have a wide range (and we do), villain will play back at us regardless of our bet sizing. Hence I think it is better to bet small so that when they play back at us we lose less and when they fold we accomplish the same thing.

I like the "bet big to look scary" from Blah's post.

you seem to have a good read on that TimStone guy hehe...

very good videos from you sir, u def. know wat u r doing...

Thanks!

This is only part of the truth. It's true from a GTO point of view if villain never tries to exploit you and always plays GTO based on his hand and your bet size. However, vs players that will try to exploit you, they will realize that your range is equally wide regardless of your bet size so they should play back at you with the same wide range regardless of how big you bet.

It's indeed just part of the truth, if you are betting a range that for example fold 80% against a check/raise betting bigger is not going to help you to protect yourself against that. But usually villains range is even weaker than your range on a dry board, and the amount of check/raising that he can do is limited. And when he gets out of line with check/raising, he is going to be the one to create more dead money because he's going to check/raise bigger. And with plays like floating, if we continue bluffing and valuebetting enough on turns/rivers the amount of floating that he can do is also limited and when he calls to float just to fold the turn for example we just made more money.

[quote]But usually villains range is even weaker than your range on a dry board[/quote].
I agree with this overall.
However when villain plays back at us his range will certainly be less wide than ours.
He will fold all his crap holdings (that would fold to a small CBet) and play back with stronger range than ours.

[quote]And when he gets out of line with check/raising, he is going to be the one to create more dead money because he's going to check/raise bigger[\quote].
He is not really creating dead money since his range is stronger than ours.

So all in all you end up putting more money into a pot where your range is weaker than villain's one.

.
I agree with this overall.
However when villain plays back at us his range will certainly be less wide than ours.
He will fold all his crap holdings (that would fold to a small CBet) and play back with stronger range than ours.

If villains play would be totally inelastic w.r.t. bet sizing betting smaller obviously works, but let's assume for a second that villain is check raising us with the maximum frequency that he can get away with against the small bet size and call this X. And let's assume that villain check/raises 3x our continuation bet, that we raised 3x preflop, making the pot 6,5bb, and that we will cbet small 4bb and big 5bb.

Now if villain is check/raising our 4bb cbet he will be risking 12bb to win 10,5bb, so this would need to work 53% of the time make money. If we cbet 5bb he will be risking 15bb to win 11,5bb, so this would need to work 57% of the time. If villain would be check/raising range X against the small cbet that only requires 53% fold equity he will without a doubt be making a mistake if he check/raises the same range against the bigger bet where he needs 57% fold equity.


What the optimal betsize is in NLH is an extremely difficult question, the math is just too complex (I'm already making all kinds of assumptions for a simple spot, and ignoring future streets). But I'm 100% sure that a bigger betsize reduces the maximum frequency that villain profitable can play back at you with check/raising, floating or other plays.

I'm 100% sure that a bigger betsize reduces the maximum frequency that villain profitable can play back at you with check/raising, floating or other plays.

I disagree with this. Good bet sizing comes from leverage the minimum amount while causing the villain to commit a larger portion of his stack such is the case when we 4 bet to like 25BB to make the villain commit his whole stack. When we are raising someone's bet we do not need to make it exactly 3x their raise (I have no idea who came up with this rule). The only thing we need to think about is SPR in future streets. For example in 3 bet pots no one raises to 3x the cbet size and a minraise would do just fine to be able to ship all in on the turn. The bigger your initial bet the smaller villain needs to raise with respect to your initial bet size to achieve maximum leverage thus they get a better price to play back at you -> they can do it more often.

When playing against people who can hand read, the range of hands they play back at you with will be only dependent on your perceived range and not much on your bet sizing. Imagine a player with 50% PFR and he cbets pot on every flop compare that to a player who does the same thing except he bets 2/3 pot. The range of hands we play back vs both villain will be the same (not folding much) and it's because their perceived range is equally weak not because one bet bigger we have to fold more to be GTO.

Bigger bet size allows us to bluff more in spots where villain can't get a good grasp on our perceived range and is forced to play GTO or be exploited.

blah234; how can you disagree with the math in the example above? If X is the maximum frequency with 4bb cbet, there is really no way that the maximum frequency with a 5bb cbet is equal to X. The only way when this isn't true is when X is in both cases 100% (or 0%). Besides these edge cases it's a mathematical fact. The EV of betting bigger could be lower than betting smaller (just shoving 100bb in a 6,5bb pot would not be +EV, but it would at the same time minimize the frequency that villain can continue).

About leverage; that only applies when you are able to leverage your whole stack with the smaller size, otherwise the smaller bet is also reducing leverage (that also applies for the smaller initial cbet - it's reducing leverage). If villain for example would just check/minraise instead of check/3x raise he would certainly be reducing leverage.

And SPR on future streets is also not the only thing we need to think about. The odds that we are giving villain are also relevant. Just as with the small/big cbet, if we get check/raised small we can rebluff cheaper/float cheaper and play back at the check/raise more often. And since poker hands have equity as well, what kind of odds you are getting to try to realize that equity is also relevant.

Edit: I just typed out the bigger rambling response and felt like this explains it in a simpler way.

People can have both elastic and inelastic ranges with respect to your bet size. People will not play GTO vs you like you want them to. Fish will just be clicking buttons and good regs will go by your perceived range. Vs inelastic range betting bigger as a bluff = spew. Think about a fish calling you down with any pair and you are betting pot every street as a bluff more than half the time then the fish is accidently exploiting you. As you can see in this example bigger bet does not reduce the frequency villain can play back at your profitably.

So saying 100% sure bigger bet reduces the frequency in which villain can profitably play back are you I can't agree with.

blah234; I don't know what to tell you more, but what you are saying is simply not true. If someone is playing back the same percentage against a small cbet or a big cbet they are either not playing back enough at the small cbets, or they are playing back too much against the big cbets.

People will not play GTO and fold the bottom x% of their range depending on your bet size like you want them

I certainly don't want people to play GTO, if they don't adjust they are simply making a mistake. Either in the scenario against the small bet or the scenario against the big bet.

People will not play GTO and fold the bottom x% of their range depending on your bet size like you want them to. vs someone who's calling wide range preflop and c/r all in on the flop vs any cbet, are we really going to fold the bottom x% of our range to be GTO where x is higher than if he c/r to 50BB instead?

That's not a strong example since both scenario's are effectively almost the same and hand strengths have a discrete value. If the scenario's are too similar the hand ranges will be the same. It's not like it's possible to call in scenario 1 with 30 combo's and with 30,1 combo's in scenario 2. Poker hands have discrete values. Doesn't invalidate the underlying concept.

blah234; I don't know what to tell you more, but what you are saying is simply not true. If someone is playing back the same percentage against a small cbet or a big cbet they are either not playing back enough at the small cbets, or they are playing back too much against the big cbets.

How? Assuming both ranges are same there's still a point where your perceived range is weak enough that villain will have inelastic playing back ranges which is not related to your bet size and they're not making a math mistake. In that case betting bigger is just spewing.

Also, people don't need to raise to 3x your raise size. The bigger you bet the smaller they need to raise with respect to the pot size to achieve the same leverage ie get it all in by the river. They can actually play back more if your range is weak since it doesn't matter if they give you better odds with smaller raise size most of your range is too weak even given the better odds.

blah234; I don't know what to tell you more, but what you are saying is simply not true. If someone is playing back the same percentage against a small cbet or a big cbet they are either not playing back enough at the small cbets, or they are playing back too much against the big cbets.

That would be true if villain's range was elastic.

But here Villain's range is inelastic. Since our range is weighed towards bluffs and behind villain's playing back at us range, it doesn't make sense to bet big.