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

Time Link to 00:20:08

By stealing the blinds we risk 2.5 to win 1.5, so we lay ourselves 1.5:2.5 instead of 2.5:1.5

By stealing the blinds we risk 2.5 to win 1.5, so we lay ourselves 1.5:2.5 instead of 2.5:1.5

yup i am confirmed dyslexic at writing fractions

reward:risk is the form it should take....thanks for spotting that

Time Link to 00:38:58

Great 2ndpart so far - rly feel that such a series about such a very very important fundamental topic of poker, is incredible valueable - thx sor it very much

Only one question to check my math quickly:

If someone 3bets us (with all the sizeing in the example), we have to continue probably in exactly 33,333...% to be balanced here in our defends -> so that SB cannot 3bet us too often...

Now imagine we are the SB and get a 4bet of 20BB of the BTN.
Question: How often we have to 3bet/5betjam to be not exploitable by getting 4betted too often.

my guess would be:
If he 4bets, then we get here podOdds of 2,56:1 -> we need 28% EQ.
Due to the calculation in the vid (which is logical to me), this would mean now that we only have to 5betjam or call in about 28% EQ of all cases.

But for me here would be more logical (intuitively) to consider all this different:

If Villain 4bets us here to 20BB, then he would need 59% FEQ
-> I would say that in reality we should actually continue (jamming or calling now) in 41% to be unexploitable.

Have I made any mistakes or do I have any other logical thinking mistakes here?

the balance threshold for the second player isn't the difference of 100% and the breakeven point for the first player's bluffs. put more simply, the odds a player lays himself don't correspond to the balance point for the second player.

think about our basic example - you bet pot on the river. your range is 2/3 value 1/3 air, if balanced - NOT 50% air, 50% value, even though your air breaks even if the player folds half the time.

because of money in the pot, the bluff breakeven number will end up higher than the balance number for the player responding to the bet/raise. in our river spot, it's a bit easier being the one responding, since we call or fold and that's the end of it. here, deciding how to continue versus a 4bet is harder, since calling is frequently awkward. leverage somewhat forces us to shove or fold, which inverts the return for the 4bettor.

think about our basic example - you bet pot on the river. your range is 2/3 value 1/3 air, if balanced - NOT 50% air, 50% value, even though your air breaks even if the player folds half the time.

Exactly this was which confused me.

But how do we decide then regards to preflopspots for example where we have to react vs. an action, how often we have to react by continueing?

Now at least I think that I start to understand that it you have to consider the balance-stuff differently when you are the one who are facing with agression and have to react instead of being the agressor.

So again at the Riverspot where player A bets a PS-Bet -> here Player B get odds of 2:1 (needed EQ of 33%) -> hence player A should val.bet 66% and bluff 33% to be balanced.

But how often has player B to continue (not to fold)?
I would guess that he has to continue in 50% of all cases (so 50% of his range has to be hands which have not to fold vs. a PSB).
reason: Player A need 50% FEQ to make his bet in itself BE -> when we fold now in more or less than 50%, we can get exploited.
Is this right so far?

Before i ask you the question regards to the preflopspot, I should maybe better wait until the stuff above is clear^^

good questions and probably not uncommon. for most of us, this stuff, while roughly intuitive for all of us who didn't busto our deposits, is still fuzzy until being deliberately calculated.

remember that the key to balance is that the opponent's call/fold frequency is irrelevant for calculating ev. so A nets the same whether B calls 0, 10, 50, 100%.... if A thinks B folds too much, A can become unbalanced and upset this very orderly n+1:n ratio by adding more bluffs. if A has exhausted all of his opportunities to bluff (bet all of his air combos), he should arrive with more air to be able to exploit B better.

remember that the key to balance is that the opponent's call/fold frequency is irrelevant for calculating ev. so A nets the same whether B calls 0, 10, 50, 100%.... if A thinks B folds too much, A can become unbalanced and upset this very orderly n+1:n ratio by adding more bluffs. if A has exhausted all of his opportunities to bluff (bet all of his air combos), he should arrive with more air to be able to exploit B better.

yeah yeah, this is clear and I find it good that you pointed it out so often already in the 1st Ep. (knowledge about balancing is important to also identify leaks in the opponent`s game and then being able to balance these leaks with knowing how far you can deviate from GTO).

But here i am only for theoretical reasons interested in GTO.
So once again:
1.) A Bets PSB on River into B -> GTO: A-> 2/3=Value, 1/3=Bluff.
2.) B gets a PSB on the River of A -> GTO: B-> my guess: he has to call in 50% of all cases b/c of my guessed reasoning in my previous post.
Is my guess here right?

Time Link to 00:45:39

Are you sure that he will get exploited when he will not continue vs. a 4bet in almost in 75% after 3betted?
How did you calculate it?

I would have calculated it this way:
When we 4bet, Villain needs about 59% FEQ to make the 4bet in itself BE.
-> Hence when Villain now folds >59%, he will get exploited.
-> Hence an optimal Cotinueingfreq. should be here imo 41%, not 75%.

Do I miss something?

terp, are you still existing?^^

sir, i apologize for my AWOL departure!

for purposes of balancing, B need not worry about how often he calls. in other words, if A is balanced B doesn't improve by calling 50% versus another frequency. he should adjust his call frequency as an exploitive adaption to A's frequencies.

that is, suppose he calls with all of his bluffcatchers, assuming a balanced range (i think we all have plenty of reg opponents who do this without ANY consideration of our range ). he surmises from the information gained at showdown and from the information yielded elsewhere about A's valuebet frequencies and bluff frequencies that he should call much less often.

what do i mean?

it is often as noteworthy what someone doesn't bet. it can be hard to be drawn to a negative, but for your own sake, please try. whereas valuebet hands fall in an orderly progression of equity, bluffs are all the same - diddly squat, or whatever you want to call it. thus seeing someone check a certain value hand usually implies that he checks all worse showdownable hands, but checking a certain airball may not.

recall video 1. we had to pick among our air hands which to bluff. we could bluff all or none, but we'd be unbalanced. we chose how many we could bluff based on how many valuebets we had. most opponents do not have the self-awareness of our hypothetical player. they often bluff too much or too little and are not beginning to use balance to guide them - they are usually just making feel approximations.

First of all,
100% no need for saying sry that you have been awol - I was just worrying you got lost

sir, i apologize for my AWOL departure!

for purposes of balancing, B need not worry about how often he calls. in other words, if A is balanced B doesn't improve by calling 50% versus another frequency. he should adjust his call frequency as an exploitive adaption to A's frequencies.

that is, suppose he calls with all of his bluffcatchers, assuming a balanced range (i think we all have plenty of reg opponents who do this without ANY consideration of our range ). he surmises from the information gained at showdown and from the information yielded elsewhere about A's valuebet frequencies and bluff frequencies that he should call much less often.

what do i mean?

it is often as noteworthy what someone doesn't bet. it can be hard to be drawn to a negative, but for your own sake, please try. whereas valuebet hands fall in an orderly progression of equity, bluffs are all the same - diddly squat, or whatever you want to call it. thus seeing someone check a certain value hand usually implies that he checks all worse showdownable hands, but checking a certain airball may not.

recall video 1. we had to pick among our air hands which to bluff. we could bluff all or none, but we'd be unbalanced. we chose how many we could bluff based on how many valuebets we had. most opponents do not have the self-awareness of our hypothetical player. they often bluff too much or too little and are not beginning to use balance to guide them - they are usually just making feel approximations.

great post, which now rly made it clear to me, I think.
Basically when I understood, the "defender" (the person who is facing with an aggr. action) cannot be balanced or unbalanced, he should just rly calling or folding regards to Villain`s assumed bettingtange (enough EQ or not, to call).
Only the agressor can use for example a balanced bettingstrategy, as known.
Also your other thoughts inside your comment a very good^^

Thank you very much so far

Idk, but maybe you did not notice my previous post before the question where you are?^^
Would be cool, if you would maybe find some time to also help me there.

But definitely thank you so far, rly appreciate it

ah yes, heh

ok

so the way we calculate the exploitability point is where we breakeven continuing. just like with the n size river bet, we look at the odds the opponent is laid. so suppose the average 4b is 2.25x the 3bet. the 3bettor is getting near 3.25:1.25. our range should be roughly 3 value hands per one bluff hand, if balanced.

i think many people when formulating these ranges look to the breakeven point for their air - with what frequencies/sizing do i breakeven when i 4b air? this will obviously ensure we lose no money with our air, but a balanced strategy is indifferent to our opponent's call/fold frequency. as well, the issue of further decisions in the hand and changing equities makes the concept of bluff versus value a bit nebulous.

ah yes, heh

ok

so the way we calculate the exploitability point is where we breakeven continuing. just like with the n size river bet, we look at the odds the opponent is laid. so suppose the average 4b is 2.25x the 3bet. the 3bettor is getting near 3.25:1.25. our range should be roughly 3 value hands per one bluff hand, if balanced.

i think many people when formulating these ranges look to the breakeven point for their air - with what frequencies/sizing do i breakeven when i 4b air? this will obviously ensure we lose no money with our air, but a balanced strategy is indifferent to our opponent's call/fold frequency. as well, the issue of further decisions in the hand and changing equities makes the concept of bluff versus value a bit nebulous.

ah all right, thank you^^

So finally I am ready with part 2

It was a very good part and especially the end of the vid was just pure nutz, imo
Do you btw. personally make sometimes off-game analysis of REGs which you are playing frequently?
For example to find out which hands are the 3betting in certain spots (as you have recommended to do so).
If you are doing this,
how you would recommend to do this?
Sometimes i have just checked up the 3betrange of a special opponent in a special spot (for example SBvsBTN) with the help of HEM under the category "PreflopCard."
This seems to be a mistake b/c it shows an opponent`s whole 3betrange vs. all of his villains in a certain spot.
But he could 3bet vs. Player A a different range than vs. me in a certain spot....

Have you maybe any input on this one

ty, ty!

i believe HEM's table manager actually has a fantastic feature where it will show 'known 3b hands' and whatnot.

as far as confusing his range v others v his range v you: well, that's something you just have to be good at doing. as with any category of action in poker, it's up to you to recognize how your opponents adjust to you

ty, ty!

i believe HEM's table manager actually has a fantastic feature where it will show 'known 3b hands' and whatnot.

as far as confusing his range v others v his range v you: well, that's something you just have to be good at doing. as with any category of action in poker, it's up to you to recognize how your opponents adjust to you

all right,
sounds true, thx so far^^

Time Link to 00:28:40

Great stuff! This picture reminded me of something Mike Caro said in one of his books. He had a particular way of ranking hands preflop, not just based on All-In EV but also on flop playability. He said that there was a small # of hands that were +EV preflop and a small # that were -EV preflop. This left you with the great bulk of preflop hands that were only small +/- EV and wouldn't make a huge difference in your long-term expectation but would have other metagame effects (TAG vs LAG etc.). I pictured this as a Bell Curve, which might be useful added to your diagram.

As you start adding more hands, these hands will be more in the middle of the Bell Curve, will little difference in all-in showdown equity, The difference will be in all those other areas in post-flop play where poker gets interesting! I would also think that you're adding a lot more variance to your range by playing these hands that behave more like a coin flip (from an EV perspective). Keep up the good work...

Hello terp,

Excellent Serie.
I think you made a mistake in the 4bet maths. You corrected it for the 3bet part but not for the 4bet part, It was that you need to continue 1/3 of the time (and not 2/3) in order not to be exploited by vilain's 3bet.
Odds were 12:6 => 6/18 = 0.33 (and not 12/18)
Here it is, correct me if it's wrong
When you face a 4bet, you need to call 11 to win 29 (in your example), almost 3:1. 29:11 => 11/40 = 0.275 (and not 29/40 => 3/4).
It means that we need to continue 1/4 of our 3betting range only and not 3/4.