well, welcome back then, I must admit that thou hast some dogged spirit
Notifications
Clear all
Thanks for the Feedback!
Well I do like football (at least watching), not an enthusiast though. however i´m obviously happy if the english or dutch get beaten (which fortunately is the case regularly) 
.. and hi Boomer, nice to see you here
You find the Link of the recording of the first Coaching in the first post now!
Hope to see you guys monday: Application: Hand Review
Hi, even if seems you talking about basic, i feel like its giving me lot
so thank you and keep on as long as possible:)
Originally posted by gersiL
Hi, even if seems you talking about basic, i feel like its giving me lot
so thank you and keep on as long as possible:)
Yea +1 
Have one question, will your presentations be somewhere available after the course is done ?
Thanks guys for the Feedback! good to hear that.
@Necromadx: sorry no.. but you can see them in the videos.
@venatici: hope to see you next week then. The Video for the 2nd Video will be available in the video section soon, i´ll also link it in the first post. there you can find the the video of the first coaching too.
i have tried to make the 3 part-ranges :
1. x/r for Value
1.1 x/r Bluff-%
2. x/c
3. x/f
for the last coaching-Hand.
a) the RFI-Range BU and defend-Range BB (Hero)
1. and 1.1 x/r Value + Bluff
OK ?
Or more Value Combinations ?
(But it doesnt feel good to x/r for value with 7s4s = 55% equity / example..look x/c Range-Part 1)
Other / more bluff-combinations ?
87s, 85s, 75s, 53s, 87o (Bluffs ..)
2. x/c-Range
OK ?
Move some hands from x/c-Range (Part-1) to the x/r-Value-Range ??
Some Hands from the x/c Range(part 1) have 52-57 % Equity. But i think this this Hands are to weak for x/r.. or ?
3. x/f Range
We should not fold more than 18 % ?
Or should i call Q5 s (example)...Hands with BDSD + BDFD ?
Total-Chart from the Flop-Range
(Ungrouped = Folding-Range)
Opinions or ideas or comments ?
Looks okay except for the following objections:
- You assume the button is opening 50%+ and c-betting 100%. This is not entirely realistic.
- Your calling range is too weak (irrespectively of the first point). The button can confidently bet 88+ for value regardless of what peels off on turn when you x/c flop. (You are exploitable.)
- The percentages appears to be the ones that assumes the current bet is the last bet. (Not too sure about this, haven't seen coaching, but this appears to be the case.) This model is very crude, and need not be followed religiously.
Edit: The fact that you bluff so little here (28 combos?) compared to value-raises indicates that your value range is too big.
More edit: If you find yourself check-calling with Q-high trash on the flop just to maintain the "max 18% flop folds", then you call too widely preflop.
Originally posted by YohanN7
[*]You assume the button is opening 50%+ and c-betting 100%. This is not entirely realistic.
I think this is default / fixed beting sequence ?!
What ist not realistic ? The opening or cbetting ? Or both ?
Originally posted by Rettungs1zeichen
Originally posted by YohanN7
[*]You assume the button is opening 50%+ and c-betting 100%. This is not entirely realistic.I think this is default / fixed beting sequence ?!
What ist not realistic ? The opening or cbetting ? Or both ?
The combination of it is perhaps "standard" to many players, but it is far from GTO. See Boomers latest coaching series. Since you are (seemingly) employing "one-street GTO", you shouldn't expect your opponent to deviate much from it (he'd be bluffing way too much, 50%+ on most boards, since flops have a tendency to miss holdings). Otherwise the model risks being useless, at least it takes a great deal of hand-waving to motivate it.
/**/
(Edit) To put it more simply: The 100% c-bet strategy is based on the assumption that people fold too much. But you don't do that. Thus you shouldn't assume he c-bets 100% - and if you still assume it, then you shouldn't try to play (1-street) GTO because it isn't optimal against such a player. Against such a player I'd tighten up a little preflop (so that my range is less vulnerable to a c-bet) and I'd bluff more than 1-street GTO dictates because he'd have to fold so much more than a balanced player
Rettungs1zeichen :
I think its completely wrong, for ex. 26% is what BU should fold to a xr and not what BB should bluff. Also bluffing frequency is calcualted considering the entire range not just the value part so not valuecombos * bluff%, but totalcombos * bluff%
You'll have around 150-160 combos OTR so for a xr youll need around 220-230 in total ( for around 32% bluffs ) but that is without considering the equity of the bluffs you need even more, perhaps around 250 would do fine. I'd say that every suited hand with a backdoor flush OR straightdraw up to ten high should be in there, also every suited connector with a backoor flush AND backdoor straightdraw, plus some king highs with a backdoor flush AND backdoor straightdraw, and maybe even hands like QT KT with a backdoor flush & straightdraw.
I can't tell this with high precision because the analysis takes usually a few hours tho this board seems to be easy, but its the end of vampire time now so I better lay down myself.
You should consider the context. I haven't seen the coaching, but from the comments ITT, it is quite basic (though not that easy 
) in this respect.
Supposing it really is the one-street-at-a-time model and letting the small blind go to rake, then the numbers for bluffing is a 7:1 value to bluff ratio (since the button is getting 7:1 to call). This makes the button indifferent to calling. The button should call and fold in the proportions 5:2 (since the bluffer invests 2 to win 5). This is 12.5% bluffing and 28% folding. This makes the big blind indifferent to bluffing.
The 12.5% bluffing is 12.5% of the holdings you check-raise. The bluff-catching, on the other hand, refers to the total range. These statements are easily proved using the assumption that you are all-in after your check-raise. This assumption is the on which the one-street-at-a-time model is based, as can be seen in many many of Boomer's videos.
Yes, the one-street-at-a-time model is crude. No raising, and no future bets are allowed in computations.
/**/
Other models are much more complicated. Of the ones existing at PS in some form, I know only of the stacking bluffs model, which can be found in a coaching session (with accompanying thread) by Boomer:Boomer's thread, see page 6 and on. Page 5 has a link to a relevant video. There are also videos by Weasel (spelled differently) on bluff-stacking in NL.
The latter model begins on the river, and the volume of value bets you have there, and applies the one-street-at-a-time model for the river only. Working backwards from there, all hands you bet on the river are considered to be for value when considering the turn. This means that you should add some bluffs to the one-street-at-a-time model for the turn. Reiterate this for the flop, and you get the flop bluffing frequency. This always gives more flop and turn bluffs than the one-street-at-a-time model suggests. This is compensated for by the fact that you don't 3- or 2-barrel all flop bluffs, but you give up on some of them.
This model has shortcomings too. No raises, no donks, etc are taken into account. It apparently requires you to know the final board already on the flop (it really doesn't through statistical averaging). But it is better than the one-street-at-a-time model. Also, bluffs all have a component of value (as kavboj points out). But value hands accordingly have a bluff component (as kavboj does not point out), and the model implicitly assumes that these effects cancel. Edit: The "bluffs have value" part is also tempered by the fact that, in reality, a bluff can be raised and you are forced to call due to pot odds. It may turn out that a cheaper next card has more value than the (value part of the) bluff has.
/**/
According to both these models, the 100% c-bet is wrong, and is a purely exploitative play against players routinely folding too much on the flop.
Edit: The one-street model dictates a 16.67% c-bet bluffing frequency. The bluff stacking model dictates a 43% c-bet bluffing frequency. The latter is quite realistic yielding some 70-80% of the total range for c-betting. Now add some due to positional advantage (ignored by both models), and you get a healthy 80-90% flop c-betting frequency (that should depend on the board).
I dont think that any context exists in which I would agree with bad moves.
BTW I have left the usage of models now long ago, because there isnt a single model which could be used generally because almost every situation is unique enough to overweigh the simplifications of models. Tho they are useful for understanding the mechanisms of balanced play.
But one is sure: if you bluff only 12.5% your opponent has to overfold here massively. Exploitatively against someone sane enough I'd bluff even more than 32% because I'd like to take advantage on his 100% c-bet range, but against most people who only mind the huge flop odds I usually value xr a shitton and dont bluff at all.
Thanks Rettungszeichen for the analysis! i think you didnt add combos to the flop c/c range that you plan to c/r on the turn and also no hands to strengthen your cc cc cc range, resulting in a range beeing too weak. also i like the bluff c/r range beeing a bit better balanced including hands that are now draws (but have backdoor flushdraw).
And thanks a lot for the fruitfull discussion. I´m gonna share some thoughts now and we can also discuss it tonight in the coaching.
- in the coaching i was applying some ideas combing one-street-at-time-principles with trying to integrate plans for further streets in something that could make up for some basic gameplan / concept from the flop on
- The thoughts were not already trying to adapt on any players tendencies, rather trying to make a basic gameplan against a lets say gto opponent, without the need to be perfect, rather be usable
- its true however that a gto opponent would not cbet 100% (but a lot since the board slightly favors him meaning he can bet more!) and that would be a leak we had to adapt again with c/r more (especially as a bluff). -> we put him on 100% only for the sake of simplicity and without trying to adapt on that right away (which is a bit inconsistend!)
- it was stated that the amount of bluffs should be much higher and this would be supported by the "Bluff stacking modell" (thanks Yohan for the wrap up of this analysis approach!). i´m willing to agree on that as a general idea.
HOWEVER i think its essential to take into account the RATIO of our Flop Bluffs compared to a flop value-raising range and we can NOT increase our value-raising range like we want it or make it fit to the bluffs we calculated earlier to be optimal! the value c/r range is dictated by equity (even if not in a hold-cold-way).
- raising 35% of our entire range as a bluff would mean we raise much more hands as a bluff than for value which would be extremly exploitive and exploitable on any street and even as an adaption to a too high cbet, i believe its way to much
- Again: the calculations made in the coaching was dealing with a lot of simplification and tried to give a pragamtic idea of get a somewhat decent basic gameplan, that doesnt include exploitations and could be used against good or unknown opponents
Tonight: Application - Liveplay. see you there! 9.15 cet
Originally posted by Cornholio
...
HOWEVER i think its essential to take into account the RATIO of our Flop Bluffs compared to a flop value-raising range and we can NOT increase our value-raising range like we want it or make it fit to the bluffs we calculated earlier to be optimal! the value c/r range is dictated by equity (even if not in a hold-cold-way).- raising 35% of our entire range as a bluff would mean we raise much more hands as a bluff than for value which would be extremly exploitive and exploitable on any street and even as an adaption to a too high cbet, i believe its way to much
...
Exactly. Any remotely sane value betting range is based on equity of the hands we we consider for it, not the total range. Sorry if I came across wrong there, or if it wasn't clear. The bluffs are in relation to this value betting range. But the same is not true for bluff catching. Now the total range is the biggest concern (but maybe not the only concern).
@kav, I totally agree with your last post, but finding a provably better model for any particular hand than, say, the bluff stacking model (or something in between it and the 1-street model) is extremely difficult unless you decide to play exploitatively (which is superior to even perfect GTO against every player in the world if you do it well =)).
raising 35% of our entire range as a bluff would mean we raise much more hands as a bluff than for value
there must be some kind of misunderstanding in your interpretation. If you have 35% bluffs in your range then 65% is value, and 35<65
Originally posted by kavboj84
raising 35% of our entire range as a bluff would mean we raise much more hands as a bluff than for value
there must be some kind of misunderstanding in your interpretation. If you have 35% bluffs in your range then 65% is value, and 35<65
No, the entire range also includes the lot of hands that you check-call and check-fold (which is by the why it is called the entire range ♦).
In my understanding such a range does not exist, because ranges can only be interpreted related to actions, and you cant x/c and x/f at the same time.
By entire range I usually mean an undivided(value+bluffs) range you can bind to an action or a line, so when its on x/r-ing(action), by entire range I mean all combos you x/r(range).
@Yohan: Yes i was refering to kavboys suggestions, but thats a missunderstanding then due to semantics.
if we talk about 35% of our raising range and not our entire range we see the flop with, we move towards a more realistic amount of bluffs which is more likely to hit a amount that the bluff stacking model would predict. i still think 35% of our c/r range would mean too many bluffs against a balanced opponent (whos betting range on the flop is not that weak overall), 35% feels realistic to me when we talk about trying to exploit a 100% cbetting range, beeing weak then.
Anyway we have to see since we don´t have really much we like to valuec/r here, it wouldnt be a whole lot of combinations we could bluff with.
if it comes to selecting these combinations, as mentioned i prefer a balanced range that consists not only of the stronger draws, but also includes hand that have 1 or 2 overcards to the 2 bottom cards and have a bdfd.
i hope the video of the last coaching is going online soon, actually that was supposed to already have happened.
@kav, I understand what you mean, but I suggest you change your terminology.
Others will misunderstand (and have misunderstood ITT). The entire range is your range at a decision point before you make a decision. In this case it is equal to your preflop calling range. This range splits up into checking-folding, check-calling, check-raising and donking ranges. These, in turn, may split into bluff + value, floats + slowplays, and the like. They do not, as you say, overlap. If you say the entire check-raising range, then things are clear. This is value + bluff. The entire range is the sum of the individual ranges.