---

Poker Video: No Limit Hold'Em by FoxwoodsFiend (High Stakes)

his number of bluffs only determines whether its a non-fold or not. it doesn't help us choose between calling and raising.

idk, tbh at least the example of ! Ass get to jigglin" seems to be logical and very correct to me.

his number of bluffs only determines whether its a non-fold or not. it doesn't help us choose between calling and raising.

ahh ok, yeah that makes sense now, thanks.

what you said AGTJ is a very clear way of explaining the decision - sometimes we have a -ev call but a +ev shove with a bluffcatcher.

there are three variables here. think of them as a+b+c=100

a={nutted value hands}
b={thin value hands}
c={bluffs}

value range={a,b}

he should be bet/calling with {a} and bet/folding {b,c}. i think we can see that if a:b is constant, as c ---> 100, EV(call)-EV(shove) changes, including possibly such that our action will change.

if a>our hand>b, EV(shove)<EV(call), since we are putting more money in and always losing.

idk, tbh at least the example of ! Ass get to jigglin" seems to be logical and very correct to me.

hmm, actually yeah I think Andrews response is just partially correct. To continue with my example, if the guy had 12 bluff combos and 20 value combos we can call getting 2-1. But that doesn't mean raising isn't more profitable. If he folds say 17 of his value combos, then raising is more profitable. So if he has enough bluff combos such that we can call, then the bluff combos don't help us choose whether to raise or call - the number of value combos he folds determines that and Andrew is correct in saying that the number of bluffs only determines if it's a non-fold (call or raise).

But if he doesn't have enough bluff combos such that we can call, then whether or not to raise or fold depends on how many bluffs he has AND how many value combos he folds (illustrated by my original example where we can shove when he has 8 bluffs in his range, but can't when he doesn't). So in my first example, the number of bluffs he has doesn't determine whether or not it's a non-fold, it determines whether or not it's a fold or a raise, and the number of value combos he folds combined with the number of bluffs he has determines whether or not we raise (we can't call getting 2-1 so fold or raise are our only options). So in my example if he only had 4 bluffs instead of 8, but folds 9 value combos instead of 7, than shoving for pot is +EV because he folds 13/24=54% of the time. If he had 9 bluffs and only folded 6 value combos, we still can't call getting 2-1 but we can shove making him fold 9/29=51% of the time.

Andrew - if you still disagree, can you show where your disagreement is with this analysis, perhaps using my example or something similar to illustrate?

what you said AGTJ is a very clear way of explaining the decision - sometimes we have a -ev call but a +ev shove with a bluffcatcher.

there are three variables here. think of them as a+b+c=100

a={nutted value hands}
b={thin value hands}
c={bluffs}

value range={a,b}

he should be bet/calling with {a} and bet/folding {b,c}. i think we can see that if a:b is constant, as c ---> 100, EV(call)-EV(shove) changes, including possibly such that our action will change.

if a>our hand>b, EV(shove)<EV(call), since we are putting more money in and always losing.

didn't see this post before I made my last post. yeah, this makes sense.

EV(call)-EV(shove)

is this EV(call) minus EV(shove)? or you're just saying the EV of both actions changes as c increases?

that's just a random equation comparing them. could have done it the other way, too.

if EV(call)-EV(shove) > 0, then calling > shoving

that's just a random equation comparing them. could have done it the other way, too.

if EV(call)-EV(shove) > 0, then calling > shoving

ahh ok got it, thanks terp

Time Link to 00:49:44

gg man :-) Just gotta ask, why are you 3betting 44 here, as opposed to flatting? I think life will become hell if you 3bet tbh, especially this deep, when you can't just shove if I 4bet

gg man :-) Just gotta ask, why are you 3betting 44 here, as opposed to flatting? I think life will become hell if you 3bet tbh, especially this deep, when you can't just shove if I 4bet

in retrospect i think i should've shoved anyway

ok. Not sure if I agree that it's a good default plan to 3bet/ship small pairs 150bb+ deep, but haven't done the math,

Not sure how to create a timelink, but at 00:1:40. We have AA on 964s Qss Qo. How do you think he plays draws here OTT? I think there is some merit to c/c the river.

thanks for the vid !

Not sure how to create a timelink, but at 00:1:40. We have AA on 964s Qss Qo. How do you think he plays draws here OTT? I think there is some merit to c/c the river.

im pretty sure he's jamming his draws somewhere earlier most of the time, and he's hero calling all the time.

Andrew

Time Link to 00:23:47

I think you could call the river with the J8s on the JTAQ board since he just got caught overbetting on the other table and it seems your hand range is capped and therefor I would expect him to valuebet as an overbet as well with the K and probably also for balancing reason(since he seems to bluff often in such spots). Therefor I would really love to look up his "normal" sized bets in this certain spot with this previous history.

What do you think about that?

I think you could call the river with the J8s on the JTAQ board since he just got caught overbetting on the other table and it seems your hand range is capped and therefor I would expect him to valuebet as an overbet as well with the K and probably also for balancing reason(since he seems to bluff often in such spots). Therefor I would really love to look up his "normal" sized bets in this certain spot with this previous history.

What do you think about that?

I think its way more likely that he's choosing that size with a thin value hand like AT or QJ than a pure bluff, but I could obv be wrong.

Andrew