---

Poker Video: No Limit Hold'Em by terp (Micro/Small Stakes)

One question, if we want to balance our 3bet - 5bet game shouldn't we balance around our 3bet - his 4bet size?

Like my stack of range is JJ+, AK. My 3bet size is 9$, his raise is X, so he profits if I fold to 4bet Y% of time.

That is what I have been trying to say.

I always thought the essence of balance was to put our villain to a point where he was indifferent to his options. For example, we bet the pot on the river where villain has a bluff catcher. He needs 33% equity to break even on a call, so we value bet 67% of the time and bluff 33% of the time. So his options of fold and call are both neutral EV and thus we are balanced.

Now I'm just confused after watching this.

That is what I have been trying to say.

Sorry was so focused on this question that I couldn't read the whole thread

My point is - if we are balanced than our opponent 4bet bluff(/value) strategy would be break even. There is a lot on bet sizing vs frequence in Mathematics of Poker by Bill Chen so it would be nice if Terp would relate to that in upcoming series.

ok so you are saying that if we knew his strategy and he knew that we knew his strategy (just like we know that Ivey knows our strategy), then he would call 40% as a GTO defense?

This is the way I understand it: If a player doesn't want to call too much or fold too much because villian is very good at adjusting. So he can bluff catch based on the equilibrium frequency (based on the odds the bettor gets from his bluffs). Then the bettor cannot get a read that the caller is calling or folding too much to his bluffs. So the premise of using an equilibrium calling strategy is that your opponent will adjust to your calling and folding frequencies much bettor than you will adjust to his bluffing and value betting frequencies. This is a way of saying he knows your strategy.

My point is - if we are balanced than our opponent 4bet bluff(/value) strategy would be break even.

I agree.

[quote]My point is - if we are balanced than our opponent 4bet bluff(/value) strategy would be break even. quote]

I wish I could have said it so succinctly.

what if your are playing a GTO strategy and he knows this?

He could lower his bluffing frequency. I feel like I'm being played. You probably know more about this than I do don't you.

He could lower his bluffing frequency. I feel like I'm being played. You probably know more about this than I do don't you.

right, so if he lowers his bluffing frequency but we still call 40%, then we will be calling way too much?

hahah no you arent being played. i think i understand this but im not 100% confident in my understanding, so im just trying to clarify

This is the way I understand it: If a player doesn't want to call too much or fold too much because villian is very good at adjusting. So he can bluff catch based on the equilibrium frequency (based on the odds the bettor gets from his bluffs). Then the bettor cannot get a read that the caller is calling or folding too much to his bluffs. So the premise of using an equilibrium calling strategy is that your opponent will adjust to your calling and folding frequencies much bettor than you will adjust to his bluffing and value betting frequencies. This is a way of saying he knows your strategy.

This is just wrong!

I always thought the essence of balance was to put our villain to a point where he was indifferent to his options. For example, we bet the pot on the river where villain has a bluff catcher. He needs 33% equity to break even on a call, so we value bet 67% of the time and bluff 33% of the time. So his options of fold and call are both neutral EV and thus we are balanced.

Now I'm just confused after watching this.

This, and nothing other!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


I rly think there are some significant mistakes in this vid, if I am not totally off.

This is just wrong!

hmm whats wrong about it? is it because you cant really play GTO when you are the caller? in other words, either your opponent's value bet/bluff ratio is such that you should call given the pot odds, you should fold given the pot odds, or it doesnt matter what you do if they are value betting/bluffing game theory optimally?

I rly think there are some significant mistakes in this vid, if I am not totally off.

yeah, is terp going to address some of the questions itt, or will they be addressed on wednesday in his video?

hmm whats wrong about it? is it because you cant really play GTO when you are the caller? in other words, either your opponent's value bet/bluff ratio is such that you should call given the pot odds, you should fold given the pot odds, or it doesnt matter what you do if they are value betting/bluffing game theory optimally?

I think I take my both previous comments back.
GTO (perfect balanced) is a strategy where both players have an EV of = when both players are playing.
If only one guy plays GTO, then the other guy will have a neg. EV.
-> so yeah, it does matter if Villain knows if we are playing GTO or not.

I also hope that terp will clear up here some points.

I think I take my both previous comments back.
GTO (perfect balanced) is a strategy where both players have an EV of = when both players are playing.
If only one guy plays GTO, then the other guy will have a neg. EV.
-> so yeah, it does matter if Villain knows if we are playing GTO or not.

I also hope that terp will clear up here some points.

yeah, but arent there some spots where one guy can play GTO and the other guys cant?

yeah, but arent there some spots where one guy can play GTO and the other guys cant?

Actually don`t think so b/c the agressor can always balance his bettingranges/raisingranges perfectly (GTO), but also the defender should have the possibility to react (calling, folding) 100% balanced and perfect, GTO-like.

Not 100% sure...