---

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

Would probably go for just a fold or a 3bet/fold, thinking that a 200NL reg is not going crazy and try two 4bet bluffs in a row when the first one failed, and he's more likely to 4bet for thin value.

So he should adjust by never 4-bet bluffing for the first time but doing it for value, and maybe 4-bet bluffing later? That would pretty much destroy your ranges both ways.

I mean I play NL20 and my range doesn't really depend too much whether it's the first time or not.. Same guys play the game for thousands of hands per day, so I don't really expect them to have too many "first times" vs me. Some don't even notice me.

No didn't really decide this in advance. But he looked like a regular, so he probably opens fairly wide on the CO so it's pretty hard for him to have a premium especially since I have a king. And it is fairly common that people 4bet-bluff in this spot.

Some semi-random numbers; If we for example would assume that 50% of players are tempted to 4bet bluff here, and 50% would stay in line (and that tt+/AK+ is 10% of their initial open raise range), the fact that we see a 4bet here would imply that there is actually a 83% procent probability that this is 4bet bluff (50/(50+10)=0,83)

So yeah, long way of saying; I did this because it was his first 4bet after just playing a few hands.

I'm sorry, but I'm afraid I don't understand your little calculation at all. I think I don't even understand your assumptions.
What if TT+/AK was 100% of their range? Using you formula, this would mean that there was a 33% chance it's a bluff.

I'm sorry, but I'm afraid I don't understand your little calculation at all. I think I don't even understand your assumptions.
What if TT+/AK was 100% of their range? Using you formula, this would mean that there was a 33% chance it's a bluff.

The wikipedia page on Bayesian interference explains it better than I can do; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayesian_inference

You basically have to make some assumptions on how the population of players looks like, and how big these populations are percentage wise of the whole player pool. And then based on what you observe you can calculate the probability of the player being in different groups. And if the groups are sufficiently distict (for example; bluffing all the time vs having the nuts all the time) just one observation gives a lot of information.

Thanks for your response, but in your original post you wrote: "the fact that we see a 4bet here would imply that there is actually a 83% procent probability that this is 4bet bluff (50/(50+10)=0,83)"

Bayesian inference can be used to guess which group of players villain belongs to after we have caught him bluffing, but it doesn't tell us anything about how likely it is he is bluffing. So frankly, I still don't understand how you get 83%.

I mean, it's not terribly important. I just didn't understand your calculation and I get really curious when I don't understand something, so I thought I'd ask

No you don't need to catch him bluffing first, otherwise it would obviously not be of much use here.

Example assumptions that I will make (slightly different from earlier example):

1. 50% of all players will 4bet bluff 100% against the first 3bet
2. 50% of all players will never 4bet bluff against the first 3bet

At first sight you might think that when we are faced with a 4bet from an unknown in this scenario it's basically 50/50 if we are facing a player that has a value only range, or a bluff heavy range.

But that is not the case. If we would play ten hands in this scenario and play 5 against both player types. The bluffer would 4bet us 5 times, but the value guy is on average going to have just one value hand. So actually we will get 4bet 6 out of 10 times, and 5 out of the 6 times it's going to be a bluff (or maybe I should say 4 out of 6 times since the bluffer has 1 out of 5 times a value hand as well).

So instead of it being 50/50 that it's a bluff, it's 66/33 in this case. Hope this explains is.

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.