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

lovely animation with the kick boxer. link to the noah sd video pls.

Its kinda scary how u know what we do. for ex killing the goose is exactly what i was doing after watching the videos. for 3 days i totally killed them and then 4th day on it was like the entire table was literally attacking each and every hand i was in. the stuff about not going to sd is pretty interesting too.
didnt pay attention to it coz i always thgt only 10% players are gd enough to notice all that and i can still live of the rest 90%.

I'm going to watch the finale while having some coffee. I just hope I can manage to get the image of that perfectly balanced, lovely beast off my mind.

is there some kind of rule that says all series must end in 8 parts. i think this series should be much more longer

Great last day at Balance school. I hope people do not think about the things you said :-)

Really enjoyed the whole series. It's nice to see some videos without the word 'feeling'

I was hoping you wouldn't mind answering a couple of quick Q's:

1) When compiling balanced ranges away from the tables how do you determine the ratio of 'value'/weaker hands in betting and checking ranges? Of course in practice this should not be static as we want to adjust ranges for our opponent's tendancies, but I'm talking about a theoretical model for a 'perfectly balanced' range on paper just when we know the board and our opponent's range fairly well.

2) When working on check back ranges how much emphasis do you put on potential reverse implied odds on against an opponent's range? For example is my thinking flawed/ misapplied here:

Hero OTB v BB, single raised pot.
Villain is weak tight and not 3betting very much.

Flop: Ah Th 4c
BB checks

I'd elect to c-bet:

54 and 64 because;
- I have equity that's vulnerable against much of my opponent's range and;
- I have 4-6 relatively clean outs.

I'd be more inclined to check:

Q4s because;
- when I am reverse dominated OTT and OTR (more of a threat with this hand, given QT and AQ are decent part of villain's range), I may lose a smaller pot than I would have had I bet.
- I have a blocker vs my opponent's gutters / double broadway hands so he has fewer combos of these for me to fear giving a free card to in the first place.

Thanks again for making the series.

I'm doing a lot of work using flopzilla at the moment. If anyone's looking to swap ideas and share the workload feel free to PM me.

1) great question and very well worded. you definitely understand the basic idea here - start with a mathematically balanced range and then adjust. these adjustments are calculated deviations from balanced play that we do to exploit our opponents.

the easy answer to this is we start by betting everything ahead of their range and then design a bluffing range such that we have the right number of combos based on our bet size. in the videos, i showed this using numbers to represent hand strength. if our opponent's best hand is 90, we can bet 91, 92, 93....and then bluff with the corresponding number of combos.

applying this model to poker: use info you have learned to construct their range, particularly the upper end. how has his play limited the top of his range? act accordingly!

2) good question. other reasons to cbet 4x - 1) unlikely to get c/r on this board 2) can bluff a lot of cards that don't help you

as far as Q4, i would also bet it. so much of your betting with these hands revolves around bluffing (betting hearts, Kx, Jx) that the very small risk of being dominated by AQ, QT, KJ is not much of a consideration

Thanks for the fast response.

I think I remember your point about bet size in an earlier video and it seems reeeeeally important now.

So with a 1/2 sized bet we can have 2 combos of bluffing hands for every combo of value hand?
With a 2/3 bet we can have 1.5 combos of bluffing hands for every combo of value hand etc?
(with the above ofc being limited to theoretical balance given a flop showdown)

Can you spot any errors in my dummy's step-by-step for finding theoretical balance for flop play exclusively...(apologies, I've kept it as succinct as I can).

1) Choose a flop. (e.g. Ah Th 4c)

2) Determine hero's opening range X from a given position (e.g. BTN)

3) Determine villain's calling range Y from a given position and with a given action (e.g. a call)

4) Determine villain's 'value' range Z. I.e. the range he'll definitely invest more chips with vs a Cbet.

5) Determine which hands hero can cbet OTF with an immediate equity advantage over villain's range Z. We'll call this range A.

6) Being careful not to double count, make a note of how many combinations of hands are in hero's range A.

7) Determine which hands in hero's range X are not in hero's opening range A but are ahead/close in equity to villain's original defend range Y.

8) These hands can then be divided into two categories:
i) Check backs. Crucially hands that have SD value and if behind OTF have limited outs to improve to what is likely the best hand. Often labelled 'way ahead way behind' hands. E.g. QT on Ah Th 4c.
ii) Semi bluffs. These'll be mostly draws with 7+ outs and some over + gutter hands when facing wider ranges. They will likely have limited SD value. E.g. 6h5h on Ah Th 4c.

9) Determine a uniform cbet size for the flop in question. This would allow you to work out how many combos of bluffs you can put in your cbet range (optional). This would be worked out with: (Pot Size $ / Cbet size $) * No of combos in hero value range A = Number of combos of bluffs allowed in balanced cbet range.

10) Formulate your betting range using:
- value hands in range A;
- semi bluffs from point 8i) and;
- 'better air'. 'Better air' will be hands that stand to do well on future streets vs your opponent's range. I.e. they'll have pot or bluff equity. E.g. backdoor flush or straight draws or on some boards even underpairs with little SD value that will have a high chance of being best should they spike their set.

i will follow a fast response with a slow one! i apologize, but i was on a long trip wine tasting in the okanagan valley in british columbia.

you cannot ever have more (or even as many) bluffs as value hands. if you could, your opponents would be incorrect to ever fold. take the odds you lay them, and that ratio represents value:bluffs. that is, to use your numbers, a 1/2psb lays your opponent 3:1 (1+.5psb:.5psb). he needs to win once in four attempts to break even, so a ratio of three value hands to one bluff is balanced.

you present a very good framework for trying to craft a balanced range. for true/exact balance, the river provides the best opportunity, since it's a one-and-done deal. alternately, any time you are getting all-in works similarly.

to balance your flop play, you are doing exactly what you proposed - structure your betting ranges to be able to continue. envision how the hand can keep playing out, and craft yourself some room.

the less likely your opponent is to c/r you, the more likely you should be to bet backdoor draws - get it? think like that. shift your frequencies in anticipation of what he will do.

Thanks for clearing that up Terp and thanks again for the decent responses. I've added these considerations especially the last one on BDeq.

Don't think I'm going to renew my DC subscription. Anyone reading this who wants to split workload with me away from the tables is welcome to send a PM 2p2 where I've go under the same name.

Hey Terp!

Just bought a month of DC to watch your series on balance. I thought it was a really good series so thank you for that. I have a few questions I hope you don't mind answering.

I'm trying to do some exercises you advocated in the series where I try to count combos for both Villains and my range and split them into categories like top pair, mid pair, fd's etc. so I have an overview on the ranges.

I then created a random T52 rainbow flop and compared my 64% btn steal range vs villains 10% bb defend range (99-22, AJ-AT, KQ-KJ, KTs, QJ, QTs, JTs)

Hero pre-flop range: 64%
Broadway - 160 (20%)
Suited hands - 276 (33%) - 40 overlap combos @ broadway
Big pairs - 24 (3%)
Mid pairs - 60 (7%)
mid/small - 156 (18%)
Ax - 128 (15%) - 32 overlap combos @ broadway
rest - 42
Total combo - 846

Villain pre-flop range: 10%
Broadway - 92 (66%)
Suited hands - 32 (23%) - 32 overlap combos
Big pairs - 0
Mid pairs - 48 (34%)
mid/small - 0
Ax - 0
rest - 0
Total combo - 140

Now I took a random flop

T52 rainbow

Hero value range on T52 rainbow
tp - 93
2pair + - 13
pp below tp - 24
mid pair - 57
Total - 178 out of 771 total combos after card removal (according to flopzilla).

With 178 value combos if I chose to c-bet 2/3 pot I give villain 2.5:1 odds and thus need a value:bluff ratio of 2.5:1
178/2.5 = 71 bluff combos

178 value combos : 71 bluff combos only turn out to 249 combos leaving 522 combos unaccounted for.

Obviously we aren't supposed to check back 522 combos here so lets add over cards like KQ to the value range because they have the most equity of our air hands.

KQ vs his pre-flop range on the flop before any action probably has like 35-40% equity. Once we c-bet and he calls we probably only have around 25% equity. (btw is it even important what equity we have otf before actions? Or do we only care about the equity we have vs the hands that he actually continues with?)

My questions are:

1. If KQ only has ~25% equity how can we classify it as a value hand? I realize given we are on the flop and still have 2 streets left it's not quite black and white how we rank/rate value hands.
Like can I vaguely assume if we are in a spot like this w tons of no made hands that we can value bet hands with like 25+ equity that ALSO are "easy" to play on turn + river like a KQ hand would be here.

My idea would be to include any hand with 2 over cards as value and then add the correct ratio of bluffs and then we possible end up with 4-600 combos we can cb and then we can check behind some weak a high hands and rest of our air.

2. Do you have any hints as to what equity% etc we can include as value hands if we run out of real made hands?

3. I can't find any hand I want to check back here. Like 99-66 I want to bet because I likely have the best hand and turn+rivers can be bad for my hand. Can my check back range be ok if I just check back some A/K highs and rest of my air? I can possible call a bit with A/K high ott occasionally so it's not like I'll be c/f always.

4. In a spot like this where I have so much air. I'm sure it can't be a good play but I was wondering what about c-betting 2x pot just so we can be able to bet more of our air?

Thanks, sorry for the length hope it isn't too much.

Kalle

hey kalle,

thanks for posting and sorry for the delayed response.

so let's take a look at this in pieces, which you did:

preflop - we're likely never going to get a perfect opponent profile on preflop ranges. our best bet is to apply a generic range based on similar player style at this limit. i'd probably discount people flatting with 22-55 and maybe 66, but you never know. for the sake of this discussion, i'll use your range and just encourage you to use that model in the future. you may have been using it here, but i want to make it explicit for anyone else reading.

flop - a couple things stand out.

first, our broadway and suited hands have largely whiffed. that is, we have no solid equity yet. still, we can represent a lot of this equity on the turn if our opponent's response to a bet is to c/c or c/f, since we will be able to rep equity on any 9/T/J/Q/K/A as well as cards putting out a possible backdoor flush draw.

second, even our 98 type hands will benefit from this. Txx boards are quite good in this regard - they seem benign, but actually many connector or gapped connector cards have a three-straight.

so when you are counting your value range, you can tuck a number of these combos in, or you can count them as a hybrid, in the same way you might count betting a non-nut hand on the river for value. your equity when called won't be 100%, but it won't be zero either!

for the purpose of our analysis, let's flatten our opponent's response to c/c v c/f. this isn't a board that seems to get c/r a ton in 2011, but it could just be where i put in my hands.

to your questions:

1) heh. i guess i kind of got to this a bit and i am glad you are thinking the same things. no, KQ is definitely a semibluff. we'd mostly prefer he fold, but we're 'ok' with his calling sometimes. KQ also is good for this since it lacks as much showdown value that AK/AQ have.

instead of classifying as strictly value/bluff, think about equity. for a hand like TT, you could add in X numbers of pure bluffs based on your sizing, or you could add in a greater number of KQ hands.

2) i'm not sure exactly what you mean. do you mean what is the lowest equity that we can call a value bet? don't worry as much about this. we are (pre-river) trying to establish ranges that can continue often enough and get to showdown or win the pot. if we bet something like TT or K2, we could consider the latter so equity-deficient that we may never continue bluffing. real ranges taper off a bit, of course, so that we don't immediately expose our holding after one action.

instead of TT or K2, maybe bet TT KQ and another combo as the math allows....

3) you definitely will want to check back some number of <Tx PPs and stuff like 45. i would be surprised if your opponents play so well that you'll get abused doing this or that it will be better than betting them, unless you can do so for value.

4) this is a pretty cool idea. you definitely want to start thinking like this. try to work within (and slightly without!) the confines of balance. while doing so, remember our ultimate goal is to INDUCE mistakes, not just to prevent ourselves from making them. doing things that people have never seen will be very likely to induce mistakes...

Appreciate the reply btw, thanks

Time Link to 00:41:53

Great series so far. Sorry to see it end. This may not be the best place to comment on this but your comment about the ATS (SB) stats got me to thinking. I often read comments about ranges from different positions but rarely discussion about card removal effects or card clustering effects. The point here is that the SB's range of almost 45% is not the 45% range you would get just looking in Pokerstove.

If everyone has folded to the SB in a 6-Max game you can assume nobody folded AA. That increases the chances of the SB having an A in his range. If anyone would open in an earlier position with 2 Broadway cards, but didn't, it increases the chances that the SB will have more Big Cards in his hand. Because these 'good' cards weren't in the earlier positions it increases the chances of being in the SB...or BB.

Thanks again for a great series, one worth going through again.

great point, and thanks for the compliment

you can't just say 45% of hands = what pokerstove considers the top 45% or whatever. it does provide a decent illustration, though, of how large that group of hands is.

as far as card removal - it's going to be pretty hard to simulate exactly how this works. preflop ranges are too variable and unknown to assign a lot of important to calculating what might be 5-10% changes in range, especially if we can't actually identify what those changes are precisely. in fact, since we are studying the spot "what does SB open when folded to," we will always have the set of conditions that everyone else folded and SB's range has more of these amplified hand combos.

Hi terp. Thx for a great series, you said that you would link to a serie, who also teaches about balance in this tread?? plz.


Sune