Mid/High Stakes Limit Hold'em Poker Forums

Id love to, even if its just you and I lawl. I'm BJ.Como on skype.

added you! Will be prepared with coffee

Alpha (1/P+1) is based on how many hands we are value betting. So if we decide we are value beting 1/4th the time, we would then bluff (1/P+1) * .25.

Now, the problem here is that alpha breaks down on multiple streets (you'd probably actually bluff more than alpha indicates on earlier streets, and our opponent is forced to fold more than alpha indicates when the board is not static), and it's a clusterfuck to figure out exactly which hands to value bet. In practice, usually you're going to want to keep smashing with air and draws. If your range is so tight that you don't have air here, then I suppose you could smash with some K-hi's.

Bet-fold? Air/gutters (though QJ seems too good)/ and K-hi if you decided to barrel it.

Wikipedia'd GTO and found this: "Stated simply, Amy and Phil are in Nash equilibrium if Amy is making the best decision she can, taking into account Phil's decision, and Phil is making the best decision he can, taking into account Amy's decision. Likewise, a group of players is in Nash equilibrium if each one is making the best decision that he or she can, taking into account the decisions of the others. However, Nash equilibrium does not necessarily mean the best cumulative payoff for all the players involved; in many cases all the players might improve their payoffs if they could somehow agree on strategies different from the Nash equilibrium (e.g., competing businesses forming a cartel in order to increase their profits)."

I'm unsure about the solution but you've gotta know their range to answer the question with a high degree of certainty imo.

edit: Also awesome idea for thread and not noobish at all. This is pretty advanced stuff and understanding stuff like this will make you better against all types of opponents. Especially really tough ones.

Alpha (1/P+1) is based on how many hands we are value betting. So if we decide we are value beting 1/4th the time, we would then bluff (1/P+1) * .25

Is this decision to value bet 1/4th of the time based on anything? Is it since alpha roughly equals .25, does that mean we should be value betting the top 25% of our range and bluffing the bottom 25% of our range and checking the 50% in the middle?

I was just giving an example, ignore the 25 percent.

Like I said, I'm not exactly sure how to decide which hands to value bet.

To clarify, are you saying that if the pot has 4 bets in it (to simplify the #s), and we are therefore offering 5:1 odds to our opponent...then there should be 1 bluff for every 5 value hands?

Does the equity of our semibluff change this? In other words, would our ratio change if we were 'bluffing' on a rainbow board with a gutshot vs. a flush draw on a 2-toned board?

To clarify, are you saying that if the pot has 4 bets in it (to simplify the #s), and we are therefore offering 5:1 odds to our opponent...then there should be 1 bluff for every 5 value hands?

Does the equity of our semibluff change this? In other words, would our ratio change if we were 'bluffing' on a rainbow board with a gutshot vs. a flush draw on a 2-toned board?

Yes to both. Draws and the multi-street nature of real-life poker make it hard to do anything exact using alpha. The more static the board, the more applicable it is, imo.

Even when the board is very static, in 6-max the ranges are asymmetrical so on a lot of textures that smash one person's range really hard, we can't make our opponent indifferent. The example I often use is AKK flop after raise-call where someone opens from the field in a 6-max game and the BB calls. Here the field raiser can bet all his air profitably and there's nothing the BB can do about it.

Even when the board is very static, in 6-max the ranges are asymmetrical so on a lot of textures that smash one person's range really hard, we can't make our opponent indifferent. The example I often use is AKK flop after raise-call where someone opens from the field in a 6-max game and the BB calls. Here the field raiser can bet all his air profitably and there's nothing the BB can do about it.

I'd hate this thread to die away.

KPR, what do you mean by asymmetrical ranges here? Opener's range preflop is stronger than BB's?
Also, since your example is still in principle dynamic (hand values can still change as there are cards to come... maybe board trips would be closest to static board as counterfeiting is now least likely to occur) and multi street betting is allowed and BB is not limited to calling only, I'm not (yet) buying that BB can't do anything about the 100% contbet. I guess that's dependent on the opener's range (if it was UTG you're probably right, i.e. his range is tight enough that he'll only have value hands or strong enough bluff catchers and not enough bluffs to be rebluffed away).

Obv this'll be pretty hard to look at mathematically as there are now 3 streets of full betting to consider and you'd need to start backing up from the river (all different rivers I'd think) to figure out the value betting and bluffing ranges for each street.

I don't think we do...

I believe you need to give villain some range to get the distribution of value for his hands. GTO will lead to different strategies against villains who
a) only defends AA preflop and folds everything else
b) defends 100% preflop

Ninja-bump: need to brush up on my MOP so if you have off-forum discussion going on, feel free to PM.

I believe you need to give villain some range to get the distribution of value for his hands. GTO will lead to different strategies against villains who
a) only defends AA preflop and folds everything else
b) defends 100% preflop

That's not really how GTO works though. It is villain-strategy-agnostic.

Even when the board is very static, in 6-max the ranges are asymmetrical so on a lot of textures that smash one person's range really hard, we can't make our opponent indifferent. The example I often use is AKK flop after raise-call where someone opens from the field in a 6-max game and the BB calls. Here the field raiser can bet all his air profitably and there's nothing the BB can do about it.

I've been mulling over this since you posted it and I'm still not convinced why this is true. Can you explain why any further?

This thread now makes my head hurt. "asymmetrical ranges"??? "Villain-strategy-agnostic"???

I will now return to the beginner's forum.

Hehe sorry, I've just got my GTO hat on due to the thread going on in the new terp balance video!

But fwiw, with asymmetrical ranges i think k345 just means that one opponent has a stronger range than the other. Villain-strategy-agnostic was a kinda tongue-in-cheek way of saying that a GTO solution doesn't consider the opponents strategy.

Hehe sorry, I've just got my GTO hat on due to the thread going on in the new terp balance video!

But fwiw, with asymmetrical ranges i think k345 just means that one opponent has a stronger range than the other. Villain-strategy-agnostic was a kinda tongue-in-cheek way of saying that a GTO solution doesn't consider the opponents strategy.

kpr = k345? zoinks!