If he does it with A♥:4♥: type of hand that is well played by himself.
I am trying myself to include nut flush draws in my check raising range, and shoving blanks sometimes.
Notifications
Clear all
Originally posted by SuperChompa
If he does it with A♥:4♥: type of hand that is well played by himself.
...
It is actually horrible playing if this is his standard play. Might work at the micros against some opponents, but is guaranteed to make you go broke if you play somewhat higher against a regular crowd. Bluffs should maximize EV, not the number of folds. The present discussion also shows that some players will actually be more likely to call a 2x bet than a 0.7x bet. This is also horrible to do on a default basis, but optimal against someone routinely making suck bets with nuts and overbets with bluffs.
Oh thanks. I might stop doing that then. But I have been advised to introduced some not made hands in my flop check raising range. So how should I play later streets when I miss?
You can surely check-raise bluff. With which hands, and how far you take the bluffs is a matter of working with some sample ranges to get a feel for it. The "horrible" I referred to isn't the bluffing, but the river sizing. It is okay to do it on occasion for various purposes, but if you constantly bet big on your bluffs and make small bets with value, you create a problem for yourself.
Originally posted by YohanN7
Originally posted by SuperChompa
If he does it with A♥:4♥: type of hand that is well played by himself.
...It is actually horrible playing if this is his standard play. Might work at the micros against some opponents, but is guaranteed to make you go broke if you play somewhat higher against a regular crowd. Bluffs should maximize EV, not the number of folds. The present discussion also shows that some players will actually be more likely to call a 2x bet than a 0.7x bet. This is also horrible to do on a default basis, but optimal against someone routinely making suck bets with nuts and overbets with bluffs.
It is actually totally fine to overbet bluff some hands that have good blocker, and also to overbet value. On micros most of regs would overfold vs overbet since it is considered by the population to be value bet, and at higher stakes regs would fold lessn . If you say that many regs would call rather 2x bet than 0.7x bet, then we should overbet value hands vs them, and because of that we should also have some bluffs. Nut flush draw is generaly good for barreling flop and turn because of FE + equity + showdown value but river I would mostly cf because we have showdown value (so we win some small % of time) and we block busted draws which would fold vs shove (not good blocker effect). I would overbet shove rather some lower fd. Overbets are actually quite powerful if used in correct spots.
Originally posted by GingerKid
Originally posted by YohanN7
Originally posted by SuperChompa
If he does it with A♥:4♥: type of hand that is well played by himself.
...It is actually horrible playing if this is his standard play. Might work at the micros against some opponents, but is guaranteed to make you go broke if you play somewhat higher against a regular crowd. Bluffs should maximize EV, not the number of folds. The present discussion also shows that some players will actually be more likely to call a 2x bet than a 0.7x bet. This is also horrible to do on a default basis, but optimal against someone routinely making suck bets with nuts and overbets with bluffs.
It is actually totally fine to overbet bluff some hands that have good blocker, and also to overbet value. On micros most of regs would overfold vs overbet since it is considered by the population to be value bet, and at higher stakes regs would fold lessn . If you say that many regs would call rather 2x bet than 0.7x bet, then we should overbet value hands vs them, and because of that we should also have some bluffs. Nut flush draw is generaly good for barreling flop and turn because of FE + equity + showdown value but river I would mostly cf because we have showdown value (so we win some small % of time) and we block busted draws which would fold vs shove (not good blocker effect). I would overbet shove rather some lower fd. Overbets are actually quite powerful if used in correct spots.
We do not disagree, and I have emphasized the passages in your post, and also mine that shows why. My post misses one mention that I make in another post:
Originally posted by YohanN7
You can surely check-raise bluff. With which hands, and how far you take the bluffs is a matter of working with some sample ranges to get a feel for it. The "horrible" I referred to isn't the bluffing, but the river sizing. It is okay to do it on occasion for various purposes, but if you constantly bet big on your bluffs and make small bets with value, you create a problem for yourself.
That is my point. If you balance correctly, then it is fine to overbet your complete betting range if you think that it is profitable.
But here are some sobering numbers: Take the present hand with 2x overbet. It needs to succeed 2/3 = 67% of the time. Now make an estimate of villain's range (villain is Hero in OP.) Let's say it is Kx or worse 80% of the time. Let us also say that hero folds Kx and worse 80% of the time. Let us also assume that our estimates are correct. Do we have a shove? No, we will get 0.8*0.8*100% = 64% folds.
Another sobering fact (more applicable to higher stakes) is that with severe overbetting you must bluff a lot to be balanced. In the present case, you should be bluffing 33% of the time. Do you really have the bottle to overbet bluff enough? If not, you are exploitable by villain's (according to you) natural tendency to fold to overbets. To exploit this, you have to overbluff with overbets!
Now you enter dangerous territory (if you try to exploit). You will actually be at the point that I claim is horrible, namely your put in more money with bad hands than you do with good hands. This is contrary to all wisdom in poker. Players playing this way invariable lose all their money sooner or later.:)
For the moment I'll experience doing it with strong hands, and I tag the hand. When I will have some volume I will review it together. And depending on what population tendencies are I'll try (or not) to introduce some of these with air.
Many thanks for your answers !
Now you enter dangerous territory (if you try to exploit). You will actually be at the point that I claim is horrible, namely your put in more money with bad hands than you do with good hands. This is contrary to all wisdom in poker. Players playing this way invariable lose all their money sooner or later.
Hi, I don't agree about this. In poker it is all about EV of specific hand, not about how much money you put with bad hands in comparison with good hands.
You are also talking about having unexploitable bluff-value ratio. I don't see a need for that unless you play vs opponent who plays really unexploitable (which you are hardly ever going to see, but close to that at high stakes). If I play poker e.g. NL10, I would look at how much population of regs folds vs overbet on river. if that number is way above Fe you need, then I would be just bluffing and never value overbetting. I was mostly seeing that population overfolds vs overbets. If population defends close to FE needed or even more, then I would just overbet value hands, never bluff. So if I e.g. overbet bluff heavy, and I see that some opponent called me light (e.g. top pair, mid pair) I would make a note, mark him with a specific color and in future i would overbet value vs him. After some point if I see that he starts folding again (I don't see light calls anymore) I would probably be overbetting value in good spots where villain has many value hands to call, and would bluff in good bluff spots where he is capt. The most money you can win in poker by exploiting opponents, not by trying to play unexploitable (noone can play unexploitable it is just trying to be as close as possible to that). Sure, if you exploit someone you are open for exploit as well, that's why you need to do it only vs opponents who don't realize that so easy, or to adjust if they do. And opponents who notice when they are exploited or don't have leaks you can only find at high stakes because playing close to unexploitable is super hard.
Again I disagree with little of what you say.
But you are entering very dangerous territory. I insist on that. Playing this way isn't sustainable when you go up. You are exploitable, not exploitable in the sense that your fold to 3-bet preflop is slightly to high, but exploitable in a way that costs you huge bets when it happens, and quite possibly the dudes that called down your bluff overbets were exploiting you. If this is the case, don't think you are ahead in the leveling war. They'll remember the new hand very well too.
Question: What do you consider ovefolding (in percentage of bluff catching range) when facing a 2x pot straight bet?
Question: What do you consider ovefolding (in percentage of bluff catching range) when facing a 2x pot raise of a 50% pot bet?
Playing this way isn't sustainable when you go up.
Sure it is not. But we are talking here about NL10, right? As I stated in my comment above, if I would be playing vs gto God, or simply vs high stake reg, I would not play that crazy exploitative since population of regs wouldn't have such great leaks.
and quite possibly the dudes that called down your bluff overbets were exploiting you.
I am totally fine if if e.g. I overbet bluff 1000 times on river, 800 of times unknown reg folds and 200 of times I get exploited by reg who sees it bluffy and calls light. It is all about EV of the hand.
If this is the case, don't think you are ahead in the leveling war. They'll remember the new hand very well too.
Yes mostly it is the way you say. Once a reg realizes that I am bluff overbetting, he will mostly call one or two more hands, and will adjust after seeing that I merge overbet value (e.g. TPGK+ in spots where he is capt). So in future I would play more or less towards correct bluff ratio when overbetting. So the biggest profit comes until the reg realizes that I am bluff heavy, and usually vs most regs it takes some time. I play mostly zoom formats, so i don't see the same reg that often, and then again I don't overbet vs same reg so often, so it takes time until reg realizes what I am doing.
Question: What do you consider ovefolding (in percentage of bluff catching range) when facing a 2x pot straight bet?
If i need > 66% FE with 2x overbet, then if villain folds more than 66% of his bluff catchers, in that case he overfolds, it means my bluffs have higher EV of bet than check. This holds for river since my bluffs can't improve. On flop or turn I would need less than 66% since bluffs have equity mostly, especially IP on turn on drawy boards I would overbet bluff good Ax, weak pairs, which have often free showdown on river and win some % of time on showdown, and sometimes improve.
Question: What do you consider ovefolding (in percentage of bluff catching range) when facing a 2x pot raise of a 50% pot bet?
it is similar as previous answer
Okay, we agree on overall logic and math:)
Except for the last question. If villain folds 67%, then he is underfolding. It should be 75%. You can exploit that by cutting down on such bluffs.
Then we probably disagree on population reads. You play more and may be right, but I think it is unlikely. I am willing to bet that the sweet spot bet size in the vast number of (river) situations lies between 60% pot and 90% pot - if a bluff is profitable at all. By this I mean that in a certain spot, bluffs below X percent, say for concreteness, 50% are -EV, bluffs above, say, 200% -EV, and everything in between +EV. Between 50% and 200% (in this hypothetical example), there is a maximum that I believe lies between the mentioned 60% and 90% pot.
What I am trying to say is that in, say, a 200% pot bluff, the last 100% may be unnecessary and eats up part of your profit. Added risk without added reward. Graphically, villain's folding tendencies should follow a logistic curve. Bet size on x-axis, folds on y-axis. (I didn't make up this, and I find it plausible) I believe you are too far to the right in the curve.
Maybe you are fed up with me, and don't want to hear about how you can be exploited without you directly recognizing it?♦
Then we probably disagree on population reads. You play more and may be right, but I think it is unlikely
How can we agree on population reads, if we play different limits, casino? Regs play differently on different limits and casinos, play differently over time.
I am willing to bet that the sweet spot bet size in the vast number of (river) situations lies between 60% pot and 90% pot - if a bluff is profitable at all
I agree about that as well. I didn'T say that every river I am using just overbet size as bluff. On some boards vs specific ranges the EV of e.g. 33% bet size is much higher than e.g. 75% or overbet. E.g. if villain cbets flop and gives up on turn by checking behind and then folds like almost always on river, then 33% bet size is much better than e.g. 75% or overbet. But if e.g. he cbets flop, on turn flush completes but he checks behind (still can have many top pair and mid pair hands) then I would say overbet with flush blocker vs his capt range is max EV (I don't expect even regs who call light vs overbet to call still light in such spot when flush completes, since our range could have many flushes in that spot and we have blocker). Also there are many spots where 3x overbet or even 4x overbet bluff would be max EV, maybe exactly the described spot where flush completes on turn, we have e.g. nut blocker. So I think that you can't really generalize it depends how population plays vs different bet sizes, and depends on specific opponent range and board texture, what we can rep in that spot as value.
Graphically, villain's folding tendencies should follow a logistic curve. Bet size on x-axis, folds on y-axis.
I don't agree on this again I think there are spots where villain has enough of strong hands in range (e.g. if he has 20% 2 pair plus in range he is never folding them, so in that case probably it is logistic function of fold equity and bet size). But in spots where villain has weak range, many regs would fold like >95% range vs large overbet (like 3x, 4x).
Maybe you are fed up with me, and don't want to hear about how you can be exploited without you directly recognizing it?♦
I would like to hear how. And still as i said I am aware that if population folds e.g. 75% vs overbet on river, that I am exploiting enough % of regs by overbetting and get exploited by some % of regs, but sitll bluffs are +EV since I get 75% on average which is the only thing which matters. And I know that whenever you exploit someone by being bluff heavy it is easy for villain to exploit your range by simply calling lighter than usual or bluff raising, but first villain needs to realize that I am bluff heavy.
Like 2 years ago, when I was playing NL50-NL100 zoom, I was overbetting bluff heavy like crazy super frequently, with size 1.5x (if villain sees overbet as bluff he calls anyway 1.5x or 2x and if he sees it as value he folds anyway). Population was folding on large sample 85% river and 75% turn, which was really printing money, so I was all day long playing bet bet overbet or bet overbet give up, whenever villains had capt range (low % of strong hands). Now a days there is much less FE on such limits, because many caoches were teaching the concept of overbet in videos, so more or less most of reg are familiar with that. That's why I can't anymore as crazy overbet bluff each spot, but only in good spots where I can rep enough value hands and have blocker, or overbet value hands in spots where villain have enough of weaker strong hands that call anyway. So it is much less profitable to overbet bluff than it used to be, but still it is very profitable in specific spots.
Originally posted by GingerKid
...Maybe you are fed up with me, and don't want to hear about how you can be exploited without you directly recognizing it?♦
...
And I know that whenever you exploit someone by being bluff heavy it is easy for villain to exploit your range by simply calling lighter than usual or bluff raising
...
Truly great post man. Epic!
Other conceivable ways than the above bold text:
- Slowplaying all the way to the river when you normally wouldn't. Check-check-check pattern OOP or passive play IP to later than normally sound with nuts.
- Play bluff much induce. Primarily OTR with hands you normally bet with against the population. I mean a bet-bet-check sequence OOP.
- Calling a relatively big flop bet with a weak draw (e.g less than obvious gutshot) or a backdoor (when a fold would be default) on early streets because implied odds might be great.
I think these, if you happen to run into the, aren't obviously linked to any exploit, whereas calling down a huge bet with middling hands could be:)
Originally posted by YohanN7
Originally posted by GingerKid
...Maybe you are fed up with me, and don't want to hear about how you can be exploited without you directly recognizing it?♦
...
And I know that whenever you exploit someone by being bluff heavy it is easy for villain to exploit your range by simply calling lighter than usual or bluff raising
...Truly great post man. Epic!
Other conceivable ways than the above bold text:
- Slowplaying all the way to the river when you normally wouldn't. Check-check-check pattern OOP or passive play IP to later than normally sound with nuts.
- Play bluff much induce. Primarily OTR with hands you normally bet with against the population. I mean a bet-bet-check sequence OOP.
- Calling a relatively big flop bet with a weak draw (e.g less than obvious gutshot) or a backdoor (when a fold would be default) on early streets because implied odds might be great.
I think these, if you happen to run into the, aren't obviously linked to any exploit, whereas calling down a huge bet with middling hands could be:)
Yes, there are usually many lines to exploit bluff heavy range. The thing is, we are not playing blind as well, all those lines which you suggest are also easy to notice, one light call or slowplay would be enough to realize that villain adapted vs us and knows what we are doing, so after that I would stop being bluff heavy and usually tend towards unexploitable bluff ratio because I don't want to level with such reg who can adapt.
But until a player adapts first time, we should imo keep on exploiting him.
Looks like we are in violent agreement.
EDIT: Except maybe for this. When you make spectacular moves and there's a showdown, it is there for everybody to see. Not just the actual villain, but the other players too. This isn't a problem in NL2 Zoom, but it is a big problem at ordinary tables higher up with aware opponents. I'd still advice fresh players not ever to make these big moves.
I would play it same as you. Preflop we can not fold to 3 bet, that would be too weak and would create a big leak in our game. T does not complete flush, so I would call there. River is clear fold.
PS: I did not read whole discussion.
PSS: Shit, I actually commented on this hand for second time, sorry ♦ ♦.