---

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

Time Link to 00:15:52

I thought it was only our bluffs that have to break even, not our entire range. If our worse bluff hand in our range is losing money, then we should not be bluffing it. Anyway, if our bluffs need to work 67% of the time in your example, then he has to defend 33% of the time. If he 4 bets for example to 25bb, then he will be betting 15 into 25.5, which has to work 42% [15/(15+20.5)=.42]. Thus, we should be 3 bet bluffing in this scenareo 58% of the time or 55 hands, not 20 hands. Then again, I may be totally off base

Sweet, my thread got picked up for a video. Will definitely be watching this ASAP. Thanks terp.

where does the pot odds we are laying our opponent come into this (you mentioned that the pot odds are the first thing to start with, but then didnt say anything about it in you calcs)?

where does the pot odds we are laying our opponent come into this (you mentioned that the pot odds are the first thing to start with, but then didnt say anything about it in you calcs)?

The pot odds are what determined how often we need MP to fold in the calculation to remain indifferent or balanced. If we 3 bet to 11 instead of 10 then we'd need him to fold 10/14.5 or ~.69 and we'd be back to the 18 combos of bluffing hands as in Terp's initial calculation.

The pot odds are what determined how often we need MP to fold in the calculation to remain indifferent or balanced. If we 3 bet to 11 instead of 10 then we'd need him to fold 10/14.5 or ~.69 and we'd be back to the 18 combos of bluffing hands as in Terp's initial calculation.

im talking about the pot odds we are laying our opponent. his calc dealt with what we are risking to win whats in the pot, and thats how he got the 67% (risking 9 to win 4.5). he didnt say anything about the odds we are laying to our opponent.

im talking about the pot odds we are laying our opponent. his calc dealt with what we are risking to win whats in the pot, and thats how he got the 67% (risking 9 to win 4.5). he didnt say anything about the odds we are laying to our opponent.

I think this example only shows villian's perspective at the "bluff catching game" and not at poker. He either catches us bluffing and "wins" or we have a value hand and he "loses". If you want to analyze pot odds you have to also analyze the equity of his hand or calling range. Not to much the impact this has on future decisions? I'm guessing that is part of what the upcoming series will be about?

Do you calculate a balanced range rly that way?
Thought it is depending of the odds which Villain gets.

Example: We cbet on a board 2/3-PS -> hence that the cbet is BE, Villain needs to fold 40%.
When I have understood you correct, a balanced range would consist now of 40% Valuehands and 60% Bluffinghands.

I am pretty sure that you should calculate it this way:
Villain gets odds of 2,5 : 1 -> he needs 28,6% EQ to call.
to be now 100% balanced,
our bluffingpart of our bettingrange should be 28,6% and the rest should be valuehands.

I could be of course wrong.

Anyways,
I am rly looking forward to your series b/c from your posts in the forums it rly seems that you are very strong in especially this theoretical stuff

Do you calculate a balanced range rly that way?
Thought it is depending of the odds which Villain gets.

Example: We cbet on a board 2/3-PS -> hence that the cbet is BE, Villain needs to fold 40%.
When I have understood you correct, a balanced range would consist now of 40% Valuehands and 60% Bluffinghands.

I am pretty sure that you should calculate it this way:
Villain gets odds of 2,5 : 1 -> he needs 28,6% EQ to call.
to be now 100% balanced,
our bluffingpart of our bettingrange should be 28,6% and the rest should be valuehands.

right, this is what i was getting at. if he needs 28.6% EQ to call, and we only have 40% value hands, cant he bluff catch every single time and show profit?

I think this example only shows villian's perspective at the "bluff catching game" and not at poker. He either catches us bluffing and "wins" or we have a value hand and he "loses". If you want to analyze pot odds you have to also analyze the equity of his hand or calling range. Not to much the impact this has on future decisions? I'm guessing that is part of what the upcoming series will be about?

im not really sure what you are talking about.

im not really sure what you are talking about.

Basically the same thing you and Prologion said above. That this example only considers Our's and Villian's decision on 1 street in isolation and in a simplified way.

this how example is based on the idea that the villain is play 4bet or fold oop. That assumption isn't far off from a lot of regs. But you are right one way to counter this strategy would be to flat some value hands oop facing 3bets. At least thats how I understood it.

this how example is based on the idea that the villain is play 4bet or fold oop. That assumption isn't far off from a lot of regs. But you are right one way to counter this strategy would be to flat some value hands oop facing 3bets. At least thats how I understood it.

villain isnt oop, we are in the bb

my bad. still I think it is based on villain playing 4bet or fold

I think a lot of people mis-understand balance and try to make their own strategy profitable rather than trying make the opponents options non-profitable vs your range

Do you calculate a balanced range rly that way?
Thought it is depending of the odds which Villain gets.

Example: We cbet on a board 2/3-PS -> hence that the cbet is BE, Villain needs to fold 40%.
When I have understood you correct, a balanced range would consist now of 40% Valuehands and 60% Bluffinghands.

I am pretty sure that you should calculate it this way:
Villain gets odds of 2,5 : 1 -> he needs 28,6% EQ to call.
to be now 100% balanced,
our bluffingpart of our bettingrange should be 28,6% and the rest should be valuehands.

I could be of course wrong.

Anyways,
I am rly looking forward to your series b/c from your posts in the forums it rly seems that you are very strong in especially this theoretical stuff

Prologion, I think on your c-betting example, you should be bluffing 40%, just like if you bet pot you should be bluffing 33% (villian getting 2:1). But as an aside, when there are more streets, you can bluff even more because your bet's have more leverage. Your bluff frequencies should go down as a % of your betting range on each street. Like if you bet 2/3 pot on 3 streets, you should be bluffing on the river 40% of the time. So you are value betting 60% on the river and you can be value betting the turn less. On the turn, 36% of your betting range (in this example) would have to be able to value bet the river (60% X 60%). On the flop only 22% (60% X 60% X 60%). Think of having 10 streets vs 3. Could you bluff the 1st street more or less?
.

I thought it was only our bluffs that have to break even, not our entire range. If our worse bluff hand in our range is losing money, then we should not be bluffing it. Anyway, if our bluffs need to work 67% of the time in your example, then he has to defend 33% of the time. If he 4 bets for example to 25bb, then he will be betting 15 into 25.5, which has to work 42% [15/(15+20.5)=.42]. Thus, we should be 3 bet bluffing in this scenareo 58% of the time or 55 hands, not 20 hands. Then again, I may be totally off base

if our range breaks even, we're balanced

if our bluffs are independently profiting, we're not bluffing enough from an exploitive perspective. we may be bluffing below or above a balanced threshold, but we are certainly not exploiting our opponent perfectly!

I think a lot of people mis-understand balance and try to make their own strategy profitable rather than trying make the opponents options non-profitable vs your range

good point. however, making our own strategy profitable is what we would prefer to do over making the opponenets options non-profitabe vs our range. i think it was in galfond's well, he said something like i dont want to play so that my opponent cant make a good choice vs my range, i want to play so that they make a mistake vs my hand.

Prologion, I think on your c-betting example, you should be bluffing 40%, just like if you bet pot you should be bluffing 33% (villian getting 2:1). But as an aside, when there are more streets, you can bluff even more because your bet's have more leverage. Your bluff frequencies should go down as a % of your betting range on each street. Like if you bet 2/3 pot on 3 streets, you should be bluffing on the river 40% of the time. So you are value betting 60% on the river and you can be value betting the turn less. On the turn, 36% of your betting range (in this example) would have to be able to value bet the river (60% X 60%). On the flop only 22% (60% X 60% X 60%). Think of having 10 streets vs 3. Could you bluff the 1st street more or less?
.

right, but is that congruent with terp's example? if we were using terps math, wouldnt it be 40% value bets and 60% bluffs on our 2/3 pot sized cbet?

Do you calculate a balanced range rly that way?
Thought it is depending of the odds which Villain gets.

Example: We cbet on a board 2/3-PS -> hence that the cbet is BE, Villain needs to fold 40%.
When I have understood you correct, a balanced range would consist now of 40% Valuehands and 60% Bluffinghands.

I am pretty sure that you should calculate it this way:
Villain gets odds of 2,5 : 1 -> he needs 28,6% EQ to call.
to be now 100% balanced,
our bluffingpart of our bettingrange should be 28,6% and the rest should be valuehands.

I could be of course wrong.

Anyways,
I am rly looking forward to your series b/c from your posts in the forums it rly seems that you are very strong in especially this theoretical stuff

You are absolutely right. If there's one thing I learned from Sklansky's books, it's this
The odds that you're bluffing should be identical to the pot odds he's getting. That way, you're indifferent as to how often he calls or folds. There's nothing he can do about it.

You are absolutely right. If there's one thing I learned from Sklansky's books, it's this
The odds that you're bluffing should be identical to the pot odds he's getting. That way, you're indifferent as to how often he calls or folds. There's nothing he can do about it.

yeah yeah, i also think it is this way.
Hence the example in the vid seems to be incorrect (?)

@HighOctane:
I agree and get the point that we should be bluffing from the GTO-perspective 33% and val.bet 66% if we bet Pot b/c Vilalin will need 33% EQ to call.

But why we have now to bluff 40% when Villain only needs 28,6% EQ to call.
Pretty sure that the more you bet, the more you can from a theoretical perspective bluff.

Imo I should bluff here 40% if I would overbet 1,5x Pot.


Or do I miss something?

Videos like this make it impossible for me to pretend I'm good at poker.

Videos like this make it impossible for me to pretend I'm good at poker.

there are a lot of really good players who prob dont understand stuff like this, so i wouldnt feel too bad lol

if our range breaks even, we're balanced

if our bluffs are independently profiting, we're not bluffing enough from an exploitive perspective. we may be bluffing below or above a balanced threshold, but we are certainly not exploiting our opponent perfectly!

Terp I agree that bluffing 33% is optimal or balanced provided

a villain can only call or fold and

b) this ends the hand

Let me explain. You example is like the text book example like that in
Theory of Poker where our bluff portion of our range equals the odds we
are laying villain. But in your example, the villain can 4 bet. More
precisely, he can 4 bet bluff. If we choose to be balanced as in your
example, that should presuppose villain is also balanced. Let’s say he
4 bet bluffs to 25bb. His pot odds are 15/(15+20.5) or 42%. So we need
to defend 42% of the time (just like when someone bets pot on the river,
it needs to work 50% so we call 50% with our bluff catchers). Therefore
our value portion of our 3 bet range should be 42%, not 67%. So if we
use a 40 value hands to 20 bluff hands in our 3 bet, we are actually
unbalanced and he can easily exploit this by never 4 bet bluffing us
since the value portion of our range is much greater then the 42% we
need to defend against his 4 bets. Would you 4 bet bluff someone 3
betting 60 hands (4.5% of all hands)?

@HighOctane:
I agree and get the point that we should be bluffing from the GTO-perspective 33% and val.bet 66% if we bet Pot b/c Vilalin will need 33% EQ to call.

But why we have now to bluff 40% when Villain only needs 28,6% EQ to call.
Pretty sure that the more you bet, the more you can from a theoretical perspective bluff.

Imo I should bluff here 40% if I would overbet 1,5x Pot.


Or do I miss something?

Yeah my mistake Prologion. You would bluff 28.6% since those are villians pot odds assuming he knows your strategy. He would call 40% with his bluff catchers if you know his strategy. So in my earlier example on balancing across the turn and river, 51% of the hands that you bet the turn with would have to be ones that can value bet the river for 2/3 pot. 1-.286=.714 and .714 X .714 = .510. So for every river value bet, you can have roughly 1 turn bluff vs GTO opponent (ie oppnent that reads your soul).

He would call 40% with his bluff catchers if you know his strategy.

is that supposed to be if he knows your strategy? if not, how does you knowing his strategy affect how often he calls with his bluff catchers?

is that supposed to be if he knows your strategy? if not, how does you knowing his strategy affect how often he calls with his bluff catchers?

No. I said villian would call 40% if you know his strategy because that is the basis upon which GTO works. Villian would not need to use game theory if he knows your strategy (ie what percent of your range is bluffs) and you don't know his. He would just use exploitative strategy. Game theory is used as a defensive strategy. Like Phil Ivey will know how often you will call and fold to his bluffs so to defend against his knowledge of your strategy, you are forced to use game theory frequencies based on pot odds.

No. I said villian would call 40% if you know his strategy because that is the basis upon which GTO works. Villian would not need to use game theory if he knows your strategy (ie what percent of your range is bluffs) and you don't know his. He would just use exploitative strategy. Game theory is used as a defensive strategy. Like Phil Ivey will know how often you will call and fold to his bluffs so to defend against his knowledge of your strategy, you are forced to use game theory frequencies based on pot odds.

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

No. I said villian would call 40% if you know his strategy because that is the basis upon which GTO works. Villian would not need to use game theory if he knows your strategy (ie what percent of your range is bluffs) and you don't know his. He would just use exploitative strategy. Game theory is used as a defensive strategy. Like Phil Ivey will know how often you will call and fold to his bluffs so to defend against his knowledge of your strategy, you are forced to use game theory frequencies based on pot odds.

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?

Time Link to 00:09:35

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.

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...

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

we need not know how he will respond to our action beyond folding/continuing to create a balanced range. anything we do beyond this (such as structuring our range to deal with the particular size we expect) is moving toward exploitive play.

balanced play is literally done in a vacuum relative to other concerns. we use balance as a starting point and try as seldom as possible to actually adhere to balance, since this means we make no money!

you say at the start that the balanced strategy will net $0. this is definitely incorrect unless the villain is playing optimally, which is basically not going to happen. also even if he did play optimally, balanced play would probably not net $0 because of the set up of the game (rake/the situation)

to be more practical, implementing a balanced strategy will still make money because everyone makes mistakes, and we profit from those mistakes, but exploiting people will make more money

you say at the start that the balanced strategy will net $0. this is definitely incorrect unless the villain is playing optimally, which is basically not going to happen. also even if he did play optimally, balanced play would probably not net $0 because of the set up of the game (rake/the situation)

to be more practical, implementing a balanced strategy will still make money because everyone makes mistakes, and we profit from those mistakes, but exploiting people will make more money

right

one of the interesting things about poker compared to the simplified games we invent to teach areas of game theory is that our so-called balanced/zero sum game plan is actually still a fine one relative to what many of our opponents play AND it's possible for them to create and exploit their own mistakes. that is, we can play an at-worst 0 EV strategy that will often net us money.

in RPS, which we discuss in Ep 1, the parameters of the game only allow you to lose when you deviate from a random choice. in poker, you can lose pretty much unassisted by doing anything unbalanced WITHOUT your opponent(s) needing to do anything to target it.

i'm sure you've all been at a table with all nits who don't adjust to the 80 vpip fish. guess what? he still goes busto.

as far as the rake: of course. we don't talk about rake almost ever when discussing pot odds, even though it could be quite relevant at SSNL and particularly uNL, where it's sometimes a higher % and almost never capped. it might be good, though, to briefly mention that in the series.

@terp:

Was the calculation in your vid now right or wrong?

When I have understood it correct there you just said that you need 67% FEQ regards to that your 3bet has an EV 0f zero and hence 67% of your 3betrange has to be for value.

Can this be correct?

Example to illustrate my confusing:

When you potsize-cbet, then you need to have 50% FEQ -> hence in terms of you said in the vid, you should valuebet here 50% and bluff 50%.
But this is imo wring.

In reality it is dependent on which odds your opponent will get -> Villain will need 33% EQ to call.
-> hence when you wanna to be perfect balanced, then you should val.bet 67% and bluff obv. 33%.

Could you plz clear my confusion?

@terp:

Was the calculation in your vid now right or wrong?

When I have understood it correct there you just said that you need 67% FEQ regards to that your 3bet has an EV 0f zero and hence 67% of your 3betrange has to be for value.

Can this be correct?

Example to illustrate my confusing:

When you potsize-cbet, then you need to have 50% FEQ -> hence in terms of you said in the vid, you should valuebet here 50% and bluff 50%.
But this is imo wring.

In reality it is dependent on which odds your opponent will get -> Villain will need 33% EQ to call.
-> hence when you wanna to be perfect balanced, then you should val.bet 67% and bluff obv. 33%.

Could you plz clear my confusion?

this. im confused in the same way.

we need not know how he will respond to our action beyond folding/continuing to create a balanced range. anything we do beyond this (such as structuring our range to deal with the particular size we expect) is moving toward exploitive play.

balanced play is literally done in a vacuum relative to other concerns. we use balance as a starting point and try as seldom as possible to actually adhere to balance, since this means we make no money!

I still believe that the 3 bet range in the video example is unbalanced because it is exploitable by never 4 bet bluffing. If villian 4 bet bluffed to a normal 1/4 stack, he would want to have 42% bluffs based on the odds Terp would be getting. But it would not make sense to ever 4 bet bluff 42% of the time vs a player who can shove for value 67% of his 3 betting range. I recognize I may be totally missing something here so I am open to being convinced otherwise.

this. im confused in the same way.

yeah,
it would be rly good if terp could respond here b/c tbh that is the key here and many ppl in this thread are confused about exactly this point.

At least atm, I am pretty sure that in the vid terp made a mistake what is of course rly absolutely no problem.
But it would be cool, when he would join our discussion and confusions and maybe correct some things, if there is something to correct - still not 100% sure of course^^

I think all the confusion shows the value that this series will provide. So I'm looking forward to the next video.

the odds you lay your opponent and the odds you lay yourself will always differ. this should be obvious to many of you due to the change in pot size once we bet.

so, why do i focus on the odds we lay ourselves and not the odds we lay them? or put differently, if i am betting pot, why is the threshold fold percentage 50% and not 33.3%?

the reason is that balance, by definition, is where we lay ourselves a neutral EV action. please keep in mind this does NOT account for ranges. try to think of poker through the buttons on screen first and then the cards next.

to make an abstract thing a bit more concrete: imagine in a spot on the river we check. we would like not to check fold all of the time or even 'often.' note we've thought about this without talking about cards. suppose our opponent bets pot. if we fold more than 50%, he'll show an immediate profit on his bet.

well, what about 1/3 and 2/3? don't those matter? sure, those are relevant, but not for calculating balance. those will, by necessity, determine with what we can profitably call, which can also be expressed as a percentage of our range.

and this is where balance starts to show its relevance: if we are boxed in due to the range with which we've reached this point, our opponent will either get us to fold too much (showing a profit on his bet) or we will call too much to prevent that, but then lose money on the call. the trick is to craft our ranges to reach spots, as best we can, to prevent our opponent from exploiting us.

i recognize this is pretty strange stuff, so please keep the questions coming. i'll try to be faster.

the odds you lay your opponent and the odds you lay yourself will always differ. this should be obvious to many of you due to the change in pot size once we bet.

so, why do i focus on the odds we lay ourselves and not the odds we lay them? or put differently, if i am betting pot, why is the threshold fold percentage 50% and not 33.3%?

the reason is that balance, by definition, is where we lay ourselves a neutral EV action. please keep in mind this does NOT account for ranges. try to think of poker through the buttons on screen first and then the cards next.

to make an abstract thing a bit more concrete: imagine in a spot on the river we check. we would like not to check fold all of the time or even 'often.' note we've thought about this without talking about cards. suppose our opponent bets pot. if we fold more than 50%, he'll show an immediate profit on his bet.

well, what about 1/3 and 2/3? don't those matter? sure, those are relevant, but not for calculating balance. those will, by necessity, determine with what we can profitably call, which can also be expressed as a percentage of our range.

and this is where balance starts to show its relevance: if we are boxed in due to the range with which we've reached this point, our opponent will either get us to fold too much (showing a profit on his bet) or we will call too much to prevent that, but then lose money on the call. the trick is to craft our ranges to reach spots, as best we can, to prevent our opponent from exploiting us.

i recognize this is pretty strange stuff, so please keep the questions coming. i'll try to be faster.

Ok,
the content of your post seems to be very interesting, but I am sry, I still don`t get it.

Could you maybe show what balance is regards to my PS-Cbet_example in my previous post?

I have guessed that we would be balanced if our PS-Cbet_range would insist of 33% Bluffcombos and 67% Valuecombos.

Due to your defniton this seems to be wrong.

So at which points are we balanced in my PS-Cbet_Example?
Due to the vid, I would guess that we should val.bet 50% for Value and also 50% as a bluff.
Is this right?

If so,
why?

rly just don`t get it, at least atm - would be cool, if you could show me your logic regards to this example.

Thanks so far

the hard part is understanding 50/50 versus 67/33 - 'how can this work?' you wonder.

the answer is that 50/50 applies to our frequencies AND his and 67/33 applies to his equity versus our betting range. that is, our balanced pot size bet range is 50/50 value and bluffs. to discuss in terms of action rather than ranges, 50% of hands we bet prefer a call and 50% a fold. our range wants 50% calls/50% folds.

for our opponent, he needs to call 50% and fold 50% AND win 1/3 of the time he calls. the 1/3 will dictate with which hands he calls, but it will not directly dictate how often he calls. does this make sense?

the hard part is understanding 50/50 versus 67/33 - 'how can this work?' you wonder.

the answer is that 50/50 applies to our frequencies AND his and 67/33 applies to his equity versus our betting range. that is, our balanced pot size bet range is 50/50 value and bluffs. to discuss in terms of action rather than ranges, 50% of hands we bet prefer a call and 50% a fold. our range wants 50% calls/50% folds.

for our opponent, he needs to call 50% and fold 50% AND win 1/3 of the time he calls. the 1/3 will dictate with which hands he calls, but it will not directly dictate how often he calls. does this make sense?

starting to make a big more sense now. in the example in the vid tho, it needs to work 67& of the time, so that should mean that 67% of our range wants folds right? but our range is constructed the opposite.

another excellent question. i get to this confusing piece in the first video, which comes out tomorrow. it REALLY helps me when you guys tell me what gives you the most trouble in these threads, since i have to make the videos decently in advance. i can't, for instance, incorporate any of your comments about episode 1 into episode 2.

and you're right. our range should be 2/3 bluffs, 1/3 value! i promise better math proofing for the series

...
the reason is that balance, by definition, is where we lay ourselves a neutral EV action.

I beg to differ. Look, if I play balanced I could tell you my strategy and you still couldn't do anything about it. Do you agree on that? Now what if you bet the pot and I have a bluff catcher? If you have 50% bluffs and 50% value bets, I just call all the time, it's an easy decision.
The balanced play would be for you to bluff one third of the time and for me to call half the time. This is the equilibrium. If you bluff more or less, I can adjust by always calling or folding. If I bluffcatch more or less often, you could adjust by bluffing less or more.

See for example Theory of Poker by Sklansky, page 190.
"When using game theory to decide whether to bluff, you must determine the pot odds your opponent is getting if you bet and then randomly bluff in such a way that the odds against your bluffing are identical to or almost identical to your opponent's pot odds."

I beg to differ. Look, if I play balanced I could tell you my strategy and you still couldn't do anything about it. Do you agree on that? Now what if you bet the pot and I have a bluff catcher? If you have 50% bluffs and 50% value bets, I just call all the time, it's an easy decision.
The balanced play would be for you to bluff one third of the time and for me to call half the time. This is the equilibrium. If you bluff more or less, I can adjust by always calling or folding. If I bluffcatch more or less often, you could adjust by bluffing less or more.

See for example Theory of Poker by Sklansky, page 190.
"When using game theory to decide whether to bluff, you must determine the pot odds your opponent is getting if you bet and then randomly bluff in such a way that the odds against your bluffing are identical to or almost identical to your opponent's pot odds."

thank you for your posts - you've shown me an error in my calculations. you are absolutely correct - if i am bluffing at a frequency higher than my opponent's pot odds, he can call with 100% of his value range. my bluff will thus NEVER work. d'oh. i had it right originally and then screwed manage to mangle my understanding after the fact.

you are correct that the pot odds we lay will be the guiding math rather than the odds we lay ourselves. when we bet pot, our opponent is getting 2:1. our value bets should be 2/3 of our range; our bluffs 1/3. when we bet double pot, he is getting 3:2 (calling 2 to win 3). our value hands should be the first number; our bluffs the second. that is, we should have three value hands per two bluffs for 60% value and 40% bluffs.

so for the video example:

we 3bet to 10 from 3. our opponent needs to call 7 to continue. we are laying (10+3+.5):7 or 13.5:7, nearly 2:1.

we should have two value hands per one bluff. so, as i originally said in the video:
if we have 40 value combos, we should have 20 bluff combos.

thank you again, sir

thank you for your posts - you've shown me an error in my calculations. you are absolutely correct - if i am bluffing at a frequency higher than my opponent's pot odds, he can call with 100% of his value range. my bluff will thus NEVER work. d'oh. i had it right originally and then screwed manage to mangle my understanding after the fact.

you are correct that the pot odds we lay will be the guiding math rather than the odds we lay ourselves. when we bet pot, our opponent is getting 2:1. our value bets should be 2/3 of our range; our bluffs 1/3. when we bet double pot, he is getting 3:2 (calling 2 to win 3). our value hands should be the first number; our bluffs the second. that is, we should have three value hands per two bluffs for 60% value and 40% bluffs.

so for the video example:

we 3bet to 10 from 3. our opponent needs to call 7 to continue. we are laying (10+3+.5):7 or 13.5:7, nearly 2:1.

we should have two value hands per one bluff. so, as i originally said in the video:
if we have 40 value combos, we should have 20 bluff combos.

thank you again, sir

This was basically exactly the thing which I have tried to illustrate with my 2-3 example over the last few pages in this thread?

If so,
I have to be a very bad illustrator
Anyways,
good that it is clear now and my GTO-world is ok, again^^