Poker Video: No Limit Hold'Em by threads13 (Micro/Small Stakes)

Frist!

Great vid imo. Went through the numbers in a way I never do.

Loving the short format for these kind of math heavy vids. It's easier to digest.

Very well done, sir!

Time Link to 00:12:41

I am rly amazed in this new format - great!

This special vid was imo great content.
I also liked the cute pictures in your presentation
One advice in general:
It would be somewhat cool, when ppl could see in the vid whose thread it was which provided the DC-team the inspirations for the DC-Shorts^^

But like I said, just great vid

Only to strategic Feedbackpoints:

1.) I think the assumption that a loose-passive-player will fold a weak turned TP (lke K6s) vs. a 2/3-PS-Bet in a decent frequency , seems at least to me pretty unrealsitic

2.)@Overbetsize:
I like in general as an overbetsize 1,5x, like in the vid.
Problem here is that you almost only have 2x-PS left on the river.
Wouldn`t it better then to overjam here vs. at least thinking opponents (REGs) for your whole balanced range?

2.)@Overbetsize:
I like in general as an overbetsize 1,5x, like in the vid.
Problem here is that you almost only have 2x-PS left on the river.
Wouldn`t it better then to overjam here vs. at least thinking opponents (REGs) for your whole balanced range?

When you bet 1.5x instead of for example 2x, you can still fold your bluffs if he happens to re-raise (which in this example seems highly unlikely, but in other spots maybe more likely). Other than that I dont see any reason not to overbet all-in when you have between 1.5 and 2 PSB behind.

When you bet 1.5x instead of for example 2x, you can still fold your bluffs if he happens to re-raise (which in this example seems highly unlikely, but in other spots maybe more likely). Other than that I dont see any reason not to overbet all-in when you have between 1.5 and 2 PSB behind.

I said it is better here regards to your overall BALANCED range - namely: you miss here Value ragards your valuerange when you overbet here 1,5x instead of jam when the SPR is only 2:1.

Prezi!

I am rly amazed in this new format - great!

This special vid was imo great content.
I also liked the cute pictures in your presentation
One advice in general:
It would be somewhat cool, when ppl could see in the vid whose thread it was which provided the DC-team the inspirations for the DC-Shorts^^

But like I said, just great vid

Only to strategic Feedbackpoints:

1.) I think the assumption that a loose-passive-player will fold a weak turned TP (lke K6s) vs. a 2/3-PS-Bet in a decent frequency , seems at least to me pretty unrealsitic

2.)@Overbetsize:
I like in general as an overbetsize 1,5x, like in the vid.
Problem here is that you almost only have 2x-PS left on the river.
Wouldn`t it better then to overjam here vs. at least thinking opponents (REGs) for your whole balanced range?

1) I define him as somewhat loose and passive. Obviously that leaves some room for interpretation, but I believe that most players who aren't super loose will fold a weak K to a reasonably large-sized river bet. I don't see players look me up with a weak K here very often. It could be different at different stakes/sites/etc.

2) Quite possibly. 1.5x and 2x AI probably carry similar FE in this spot since they are both over-bets. The only added FE you may get is the psychology from putting a player AI. It is true that we save a little bit of money the few times we are called, but we probably pick up a little bit of FE when we bet more. It should be pretty close. Also, you are correct that it is more GTO to bluff a bigger bet size here as you can have more bluffs in your range with bigger bet sizes.

For pedagogical reasons I wanted the bets to roughly increase proportionally. Each bet size is about twice as much as the one below it. I thought that would make it easier to compare the bluffs and show that you don't have to pick up FE proportional to the increase in bet size. Bluff sizes are a bit counter-intuitive in that regard.

Great vid imo. Went through the numbers in a way I never do.

Loving the short format for these kind of math heavy vids. It's easier to digest.

Thank you. I'm glad you enjoyed it.

I agree that the shorts should be very conducive to doing math-heavy videos as it's hard to digest 45 minutes to an hour of math.

I said it is better here regards to your overall BALANCED range - namely: you miss here Value ragards your valuerange when you overbet here 1,5x instead of jam when the SPR is only 2:1.

That is assuming that he will actually call you. Versus a lot of TAGs you're looking at spot where you will get 40% of the time with a "standard" bet versus getting called 10% of the time with a bet that is 2x as much. For example, if the pot is $100 and you have $150 behind, I think you get called more often such that a bet of $75 makes more sense than a bet of $150 with a non-nut hand. I'm not going to be balancing my range and things like that without image or a reason to think that I need to. Without that I believe you are missing value by betting too much.

@threads13: All right and thank you very much for your both answers

Time Link to 00:11:37

Really glad you pointed out the importance of overbetting for value against observant opponents when you're also going to be overbet-bluffing on the river. How can we keep track of our own frequencies to ensure that our opponents are getting the worst of it?

For example, If we're making a 1.5x bet on the river, our opponent will call if he thinks he's good more than 37.5% of the time here. So if our bet is a bluff 25% of the time, we put him a spot where he's damned regardless. Is there a good way to know whether or not we're manipulating our frequencies adequately? (sorry for the dorky question) lol

Really glad you pointed out the importance of overbetting for value against observant opponents when you're also going to be overbet-bluffing on the river. How can we keep track of our own frequencies to ensure that our opponents are getting the worst of it?

For example, If we're making a 1.5x bet on the river, our opponent will call if he thinks he's good more than 37.5% of the time here. So if our bet is a bluff 25% of the time, we put him a spot where he's damned regardless. Is there a good way to know whether or not we're manipulating our frequencies adequately? (sorry for the dorky question) lol

I think this can be done using a random number generator. I read in Harrington on Holdem (I think) that he uses his watch as a RNG in live play. For example, say he thinks its optimal to bluff on a certain river scenario 25% of the time. He would look at his watch and if the seconds hand was between 0 and 15 seconds he would bluff, whereas were it between 15-60 he would not. If it was exactly on 15... well i guess he was screwed

But anyway there are probably simple RNGs which can be found on the internet for this.

Randomly bluffing for the sake of game theory seems bad to me. There are rarely situations in which randomness should be considered over so many other factors like gameflow, board texture, hand strength, etc. Maybe I'm missing the point, but I would much rather make my decisions based on facts than on my watch. I remember reading that in Harrington's book, but I've never done it.

I feel frequencies are too static thing to work in this example. It all depends on the history and your image. If you for example if you overbet for value and get called, then you can bluff like crazy. On the other side if he folds he will be bit more likely to call next time. If you overbet as a bluff and get called you should switch to valuebetting in that spot. I think that will make it more profitable than just thinking about frequencies and uexploitability.

Correct me if I'm wrong but if we are bluffing 25% of the time in a spot where he needs to be good 37.5% time he is making good folds. If we were bluffing 50% he will make +EV calls. So when we can say we have balanced range in theory? I guess when we are blugging there 37.5%, right ? He cannot make a good call or good fold. Not that it actually matters IRL that much .

Really glad you pointed out the importance of overbetting for value against observant opponents when you're also going to be overbet-bluffing on the river. How can we keep track of our own frequencies to ensure that our opponents are getting the worst of it?

For example, If we're making a 1.5x bet on the river, our opponent will call if he thinks he's good more than 37.5% of the time here. So if our bet is a bluff 25% of the time, we put him a spot where he's damned regardless. Is there a good way to know whether or not we're manipulating our frequencies adequately? (sorry for the dorky question) lol

Good question. It's definitely something that it is good to discuss the theory on.

I think you made a mistake in your math. If we are betting 1.5x then our villain is getting ~1.7-to-1 on a call. In that case we should be bluffing 37% so that he has exactly 37% equity that you referenced(if we are attempting to play according to Nash Equilibrium). On the other side of the coin, if he is attempting the same he should call 40% of the time with his bluff catchers since we are laying 1.5-to-1 on our bluff (1/2.5). If he calls 40% of the time our bluffs win nothing and our value bets win nothing.

Honestly, it's practical uses are somewhat limited because there aren't too many times I feel we need to balance a range so intensely - at least at stakes where most mortals play . If a villain is likely to call me then I will often be unbalanced in that I am rarely bluffing. If he is unlikely to call then I will be unbalanced in that I'm rarely value betting.


Assuming that it is appropriate to balance, the best way to do it is to just spend some time practicing with spreadsheets. You have to figure out what your whole range is (value betting and bluffing) and then see what your AVR (air-to-value ratio) is. It's just like using PokerStove to determine equity; with some practice you can get better.

If you figure you have a lot of bluffing combos that you would bluff with on the river, then you have to reduce those combos to be close to the Nash Equilibrium. So, say you feel your bluffing range is three times as large as your value range, then you would want to reduce your bluffing range by ~75%, thus only bluffing it 25% of the times as you want to have slightly more value bets than bluffs(60/40). A good trick to know is that if you have 4x as many bluffs as value bets you can divide by 4 to get a 50/50 balance. For example, say you have 75 bluffing combos and 25 value combos. Dividing by 3 (or multiplying by .33) will give you a 50/50 balance. Instead, divide by 4 to get a close to Nash range. So you should decide to only bluff 25% of the time. This leaves you with ~19 bluffing combos and 25 value combos. This is almost a range of 43% bluffs. That will put your villain in a spot where you are indifferent to what he does.

Randomly bluffing for the sake of game theory seems bad to me. There are rarely situations in which randomness should be considered over so many other factors like gameflow, board texture, hand strength, etc. Maybe I'm missing the point, but I would much rather make my decisions based on facts than on my watch. I remember reading that in Harrington's book, but I've never done it.

Yeah, it's more theory based, but fun to discuss.

The idea is to do it when our villain is going to be playing really well such that we know we need to both be bluffing and value betting(balanced), but we want to make sure our frequencies are correct. This implies we have to be playing against a very good villain to where all the other factors are mitigated because he is aware of them. Essentially, it's hard to out-level, out-hand read, or out-anything. I think it's definitely something that is good to look into, especially as the games continue to become more difficult.

I definitely agree that we certainly shouldn't be bluffing for the sake of game theory. We should be bluffing using game theory when we are playing against a villain in which it is our best option.

We also can use the lines game theory highlights to know which way we should go with our strategy. Specifically, game theory tells us what his frequencies should be. If they are far off from those frequencies we have found a way to exploit the villain. A lot of this is intuitive (value bet calling stations), but sometimes it isn't. For example, if we know he should call a bet 25% of the time but he calls it 40%, we should have a range more weighted to value. Vice-versa, if he should call a bet 30% but only calls it 10%, we should have a range more weighted to bluffs.

Agree 100% that the theory can illuminate weaknesses in both ourselves and our opponents and show us where we should bet/bluff more, fold/call more, etc.

The idea is to do it when our villain is going to be playing really well...

I table select better than this

Agree 100% that the theory can illuminate weaknesses in both ourselves and our opponents and show us where we should bet/bluff more, fold/call more, etc.



I table select better than this

Haha, exactly! I about mentioned that point. However, there's still times, though it doesn't occur frequently, where I won't leave the table even though there's a player on my left that is tough. If there's a juicy mark on my right, it's definitely worth staying.

I feel frequencies are too static thing to work in this example. It all depends on the history and your image. If you for example if you overbet for value and get called, then you can bluff like crazy. On the other side if he folds he will be bit more likely to call next time. If you overbet as a bluff and get called you should switch to valuebetting in that spot. I think that will make it more profitable than just thinking about frequencies and uexploitability.

Of course we should take history and image into account when we choose our bet sizes. The idea of this example is to take a look at different bluff sizes given certain frequencies. The frequencies can change from hand to hand, and it's the player's job to adjust them appropriately and accurately. You should always estimate the frequencies for a particular situation. That is essentially what we are talking about when we talk about playing good poker. Doing work like this allows us to estimate what size will be best(or if a bluff ever is profitable, for that matter) in real time - at the table.

As I mentioned in other post, I definitely will adjust these frequencies to exploit before doing it to be unexploitable, so I totally agree with you in that regard.

Correct me if I'm wrong but if we are bluffing 25% of the time in a spot where he needs to be good 37.5% time he is making good folds. If we were bluffing 50% he will make +EV calls. So when we can say we have balanced range in theory? I guess when we are blugging there 37.5%, right Smile? He cannot make a good call or good fold. Not that it actually matters IRL that much Smile.

You are correct. Balanced and GTO (game theory optimal - which means unexploitable) kind of get used interchangeably but they don't really mean the same thing. Balance is kind of an ambiguous word, imo. I hear different people use it differently. I believe you are asking when we are GTO so I'll answer that. Check out my other post in response to Rapid Evolution for a more detailed response, but you have it right. If we are giving our villain odds such that he needs 37% equity to call and we bet in such a way that he has exactly that equity, then we are GTO.

Why you never mentioned the Sick bluff or Move of Honor in the vid?

Time Link to 00:11:52

i think that part is extremely important to make sure is done. if you are going to make the overbet bluff here against this villain we also need to be shipping over our value hands, like AK for example. If he guesses wrong and we do have the hand, it makes this line look even more profitable. glad you pointed this out, and i really hope people remember to make sure they are doing this in a balanced manner, otherwise it is so tranparent.

Yeah, it's more theory based, but fun to discuss.

The idea is to do it when our villain is going to be playing really well such that we know we need to both be bluffing and value betting(balanced), but we want to make sure our frequencies are correct. This implies we have to be playing against a very good villain to where all the other factors are mitigated because he is aware of them. Essentially, it's hard to out-level, out-hand read, or out-anything. I think it's definitely something that is good to look into, especially as the games continue to become more difficult.

I definitely agree that we certainly shouldn't be bluffing for the sake of game theory. We should be bluffing using game theory when we are playing against a villain in which it is our best option.

We also can use the lines game theory highlights to know which way we should go with our strategy. Specifically, game theory tells us what his frequencies should be. If they are far off from those frequencies we have found a way to exploit the villain. A lot of this is intuitive (value bet calling stations), but sometimes it isn't. For example, if we know he should call a bet 25% of the time but he calls it 40%, we should have a range more weighted to value. Vice-versa, if he should call a bet 30% but only calls it 10%, we should have a range more weighted to bluffs.

lets assume that on the river we have 50 value combos and 50 bluffs, if villain is calling station who wont ever adjust then we are betting 100% of our value and 0% of our bluffs right ??

on the other hand if we have a villain who folds to much and wont adjust either we should value bet 100% of our value hands and bet 100% of our bluffs

but since this player if folding a lot w should decreas our value betting frequency to lets say top 50% and bet our bluffs still 100%

if all that is correct, and lets assume that we are making pot sized bet on the river therefore:

optimal blufing frequency is 33% so:

50 value combos and 25 bluffs

then when doest it make sens to choose other frequencies then:

100% bluff (villans folds too much)
0%bluffs (villans calls too much)
33% bluffs (good player who doesnt do either of the aboves, calls and folds with near optimal frequencies)

?


edit:
obv we are unbalanced when we choose 0% or 100% but since the guy isnt adjusting im guessing we dont have to change it lets say from 0% to 20% and from 100% to 80%

or it doesnt work like that either and if for example villain is somewhat adjustig then we should go from 0% to 100% and vice versa

so lets take the calling station who calls too much
therefore we dont bluff him
but lets say he starts to fold little more often, we are still not gonna bluff him
but lets say he starts folding a lot more then we are bluffing him with 100% of our bluffs or we just add some bluffs but not necessarily 100% of our bluffs

lets assume that on the river we have 50 value combos and 50 bluffs, if villain is calling station who wont ever adjust then we are betting 100% of our value and 0% of our bluffs right ??

on the other hand if we have a villain who folds to much and wont adjust either we should value bet 100% of our value hands and bet 100% of our bluffs

but since this player if folding a lot w should decreas our value betting frequency to lets say top 50% and bet our bluffs still 100%

if all that is correct, and lets assume that we are making pot sized bet on the river therefore:

optimal blufing frequency is 33% so:

50 value combos and 25 bluffs

then when doest it make sens to choose other frequencies then:

100% bluff (villans folds too much)
0%bluffs (villans calls too much)
33% bluffs (good player who doesnt do either of the aboves, calls and folds with near optimal frequencies)

?


edit:
obv we are unbalanced when we choose 0% or 100% but since the guy isnt adjusting im guessing we dont have to change it lets say from 0% to 20% and from 100% to 80%

or it doesnt work like that either and if for example villain is somewhat adjustig then we should go from 0% to 100% and vice versa

so lets take the calling station who calls too much
therefore we dont bluff him
but lets say he starts to fold little more often, we are still not gonna bluff him
but lets say he starts folding a lot more then we are bluffing him with 100% of our bluffs or we just add some bluffs but not necessarily 100% of our bluffs

Good point. It is true that if you know that a guy calls too much, then we should never bluff (and vice versa).

The problem is if you range is something like "100% value" or "100% bluff" you are so extremely out of balance that your opponent may adjust and then exploit you without you ever knowing about it. So, if you just skew those numbers to one extreme you make it less obvious what you're doing, while still exploiting your opponent. So, for example, if playing against a calling station you may have a range of 90% value/10% bluff.

The key thing is that it is often hard to play a maximal exploitative strategy because we don't know exactly what our opponents are doing. Thus, we seek to exploit by shifting our ranges in one direction, while still covering ourselves in the event that we are wrong about an opponents range - which given poker is a game of incomplete information, we will often be incorrect some percentage of the time. This often will keep villain from realizing the truth about our range, such that we can keep exploiting him without having to worry too much about him flipping the switch and exploiting us. Of course, the more certain you are about a villain being clueless, the more extreme you can construct your ranges.

thanks, its clear now