NL100 AQs raise vs MP bluff

I dont like it. I think this a pretty clear call. You even make him fold hands like AT KQ QJ wich is pretty terrible imo since you are denying yourself to let him hit tainted outs. And you remove protection from your most obv handclass middlepairs vs overcards.

You can value raise on this texture with 44,55,22. Sometimes with slowplayed big pairs, but generally just sets. Thats 9 combos. If you want an optimal value:bluff range, you should have 18 combos of bluffs.

First, I'd add 33 and 66 to my bluff range, as these are vulnerable, and too weak to call I think. Thats 12 combos. Next, I'd add 7c8c, 7s8s, 7h8h, because of the barrelling potential. Not sure if you call with these preflop tho. Then I'd turn the weakest Ax hands to bluff, like AcTc, AsTs, AhTh, etc. AdQd without BDFD is a call or fold I think. Against this nitty guy, foldig might be better, but call is also okay I think.

Hey Mlatasrb,

There is a reasonable chance bluff-raising this flop is +EV. I don't think you make the best use of your range by doing so though. AQ is probably strong enough to flat.

Holy93 has some decent ideas on how you could construct your bluff-range on this texture.

@Holy93

Originally posted by Holy93
Thats 9 combos. If you want an optimal value:bluff range, you should have 18 combos of bluffs.

So, I see this thrown about a lot. Can you provide any mathematical justification for it? I've never met an advocate of the 2:1 bluff:value ratio that can explain why =p

Originally posted by w34z3l
@Holy93

Originally posted by Holy93
Thats 9 combos. If you want an optimal value:bluff range, you should have 18 combos of bluffs.

So, I see this thrown about a lot. Can you provide any mathematical justification for it? I've never met an advocate of the 2:1 bluff:value ratio that can explain why =p

Explained in detail in Matt Janda's book.

If villain has a bluffcatcher, and we bet with a balanced range, every time we bet, he loses (indifferent to calling), and when we check he wins.

Let's assume we bet the river with a pot sized bet (usually happens with 100bb stacks, when we raise on the flop and playing for stacks on the river). With a pot size river bet, villain gets 33% odds to call, so to make him indifferent to calling, our river bets should be 33% bluffs, and 66% value. Thats 1:2 bluff:value on the river.

Then on the turn, the ratio is 1:1 (bluffing more, compared to the river, to keep him indifferent to calling with his bluffcatchers because there is one more street left)

Then it leads to the flop 2:1 bluff:value ratio, so our flop range contains value hands that bet flop, turn river, and bluffs (only flop bluffs, flop and turn bluffs, flop turn and river bluffs.)

Can't explain the exact math tho with the equations and stuff

Thank you Been meaning to read this book for a while.

So it seems the optimum bluff frequency may vary then depending on variables such as the effective stack + your bet sizing?

So would it necessarily be 2:1 still in this specific hand?

The reason I ask is that a lot of people I hear advocating this 2:1 bluff:value on flop seem to think of it as being gto optimal in any situation - seems to me poker is not that simple though =p

Eff. stack doesn't really matter, bet sizing does. If we just 1/2 potbet on the river, villain gets better odds -> less bluff in our range.

In this hand, I think yes, 2:1 is totally okay, as the players using standard bet sizings (openraise, cbet, raise cbet). Janda using 3,5 bb open, and 75% cbet sizing in his book, but if we change these numbers slightly (like 3bb open, 67% cbet, or 80% cbet) the odds doesn't change much, so 2:1 will be correct in the end.

Originally posted by w34z3l
The reason I ask is that a lot of people I hear advocating this 2:1 bluff:value on flop seem to think of it as being gto optimal in any situation - seems to me poker is not that simple though =p

Well, thats should be standard against a balanced player. If you play a totally balanced GTO play, you can't be exploited, and will be winning against those, who doesn't play optimally (and BE vs other GTO playing players).

Thats not the max EV play tho, because we don't play against balanced opponents, and get more money if we exploit their leaks (bluffing too much, or too less) so exploitive play will be more +EV, but it's very important to understand optimal play, to be able to play a good exploitive play, and know the "standard" ranges, we can deviate from, depending on the current villain leaks.

Thanks for answers, I like holy advice.

When you play, do you each move (or mostly) think about balancing your range the way you did now? I play 3 tables zoom and I cant manage about balancing my range when I need to make fast decisions, so here I saw I dont like call beause he will often fire 2nd barrel, and I saw he is tight, so I expect him to fold overpairs and overcards a lot, if not I have gutshot and overcards and IP. Do you have advice how can I think faster of balancing when I play? Or I need to practice a lot offline?

I 3bet 67s-9Ts vs utg and MP so I dont have it, and small PP like 22-55 I fold from CO because it is hard to play them +EV and people sqeeze often. I call 22-55 only vs because they make mistakes when I hit.

Personally I'm looking to play exploitatively wherever possible.

Like holy says, just because you pick a balanced flop raising range does not mean you are maximising your EV this way. For example if opponent calls way too much vs flop ranges you'd weight your range heavily towards value rather than attempting to balance.

Thinking in terms of your entire range is something that comes with practice. You may find you want to drop down the number of tables you play while you practice it. At first you will probably find you have enough to think about even just playing one table even if you typically mass multi-table.

I'm also imagining the resource holy93 mentioned, "applications of no-limit hold'em" by matt janda will provide a lot of help in this regard.

Originally posted by mlatasrb
When you play, do you each move (or mostly) think about balancing your range the way you did now? I play 3 tables zoom and I cant manage about balancing my range when I need to make fast decisions,

I switched from 8-10 normal tabling to 2 tabling zoom, because I need to make only 2 decisions at the time. Now playing on 3 tables as practiced a little and felt confident. Requires offline practice of course, make some excel sheets, play a bit with equilab and flopzilla, and it will be a lot easier ingame. Also, oblioo has a video on PS about flop raising ranges.

Originally posted by mlatasrb
so here I saw I dont like call beause he will often fire 2nd barrel, and I saw he is tight, so I expect him to fold overpairs and overcards a lot, if not I have gutshot and overcards and IP. Do you have advice how can I think faster of balancing when I play? Or I need to practice a lot offline?

If he is unknown, and/or playing GTO, and you want to approach from GTO perspective, you should be defending by about 60% of your range (vs 2/3 pot sized cbet), to make him unable to bet any2 profitably. If you don't have sets in your range, then you should only defend by calling (need to defend a bit wider by only calling, as villain see free turn card with his bluffs). Let's say you have 22,44,55 in your range, then we found the value hands you want to play for stacks, now need to choose some hands to bluff (18 combos). Hands with good barreling potential, good equity if called, and usually poor sd value. It's 27 combos. Now you should look at your CO coldcall range, see how many combos you call with, and defend the remaining by calling (fold only the worst 40%). Thats why AQ is a call. Of course it's all theory and should't be following it blindly, but it's a good guideline.
As I said, you need to adjust to the average unknown at your limit, and try to use every information. If you think villain barrells way too much, and you couldn't realize the EQ of you AQ, because you will be barrelled off always, then you should deviate from the optimal play, and defend more by raising (too many bluff in villains range), and calling with stronger hands than you usually would.

What bluff:value ratio you should use depnds on:

Potsize
Stacksize
Streets Left

I diagree will Holy on the numbers of combos to bluff here tho. Even if a 2:1 ratio is correct here you are forgetting that some of the hands you have chosen to bluff with have extremly high EQ vs hands like 99, a hand like ATcc will have like 30%+ EQ but your valueraises have close to 90% EQ. And a hand like 66 might be able to beat some madehands in your opponents range like 65s or A5s. This will probably make your rasing range way too strong and folding almost everything might be a good idea.

Originally posted by mlatasrb
so here I saw I dont like call beause he will often fire 2nd barrel, and I saw he is tight, so I expect him to fold overpairs and overcards a lot, if not I have gutshot and overcards and IP. Do you have advice how can I think faster of balancing when I play? Or I need to practice a lot offline?

Im playing 4 zoom tables with not much off an effort. So if I am in this Spot at a table I will think something like. I wont raise here very often, my overpair range is somewhat capped (we likely ahve the same number of sets => his range has more "nutted" Hands[AA/KK]) and the boared structure favores the openraisers and position is fairly valueable because the board is so low. I will defend with :

- A-high hands with a BDF.
- AK and AQ.
- Pairs

This will leave me with about this : QQ-66, AQs+, AQo+, AhJh, AsJs, AcJc, AhTh, AsTs, AcTc, 5d5h, 5d5s, 5h5s, 4d4h, 4d4c, 4h4c from
QQ-44,ATs+,KJs+,QJs,JTs,T9s,98s,87s,AQo+
I just checked its 75% of my CC range.

I dont think defending only 60% here is finde because you are only looking at immediate profit, you shoudl probably have yoour range in a way that he cannot cbet profitable with a hand like JTdd, because hitting a J or a T on the turn will cause him to beat a lot of hands in your range esp if you were to raise you sets. these 60% only hold true if you were to raise, therefore denying his "airy-bluffs" outs.
If it was an Ak7 board, you could proably get away by defending close to the minimum amount necessary because his "random" hands will ahve close to 0% EQ even agaisnt a hand like JJ.

This is similar to the 3bet trap a lot of players still fall for. Oh I defden 34% of my range vs a 3 bet so he cannot exploit me with 3 betting. Well that is not true. Look at a BB vs SB situation. so BB has to pay 2 bb to see a flop by calling, but if you are folding 66% of the time and not all of your defends are 4 bets, BB pays 0 bb to see the flop when 3 betting. Essentially freeroling you to hit the nutz.