400nl deep bluff

[Honeybadger]

Since Pleno has 24 combos of 88-JJ, lets say A3ss,A5ss and 2 combos of 78s. We are left with 28 potential bluff combos.

As I said before, 88-JJ is not the right part of hero's range to be turning into a bluff.

[pleno1]

fwiw, decent reg usually means still terrible theres no way they are ever b/calling jj/qq for 200bbs.

[JustinSayne]

Since Pleno has 24 combos of 88-JJ, lets say A3ss,A5ss and 2 combos of 78s. We are left with 28 potential bluff combos.

As I said before, 88-JJ is not the right part of hero's range to be turning into a bluff.

There isnt much else he gets to the river with though?

[SuuPRlim]

For sure, if Pleno actually has all 14 combos for value here then he cant really bluffcatch "thin" at all.

However what Plenos actual range is and what his range will be perceived to be is two different things, as I am sure you know

yeh lol, very true.

[rfgqqabc]

Since Pleno has 24 combos of 88-JJ, lets say A3ss,A5ss and 2 combos of 78s. We are left with 28 potential bluff combos.

As I said before, 88-JJ is not the right part of hero's range to be turning into a bluff.

56?

Do we have all 22/44 combos pre too? Really enjoying thread.

[Honeybadger]

Since Pleno has 24 combos of 88-JJ, lets say A3ss,A5ss and 2 combos of 78s. We are left with 28 potential bluff combos.

As I said before, 88-JJ is not the right part of hero's range to be turning into a bluff.

There isnt much else he gets to the river with though?

Hands like 87s, 65s etc... these are the hands we should be turning into bluffs on the river some reasonable % of the time. We don't have that many combos of them, but we don't need that many combos of them to balance our sets.

Whenever I have pulled this sort of move at 200NL and 400NL I don't remember ever having been called by JJ or KQ - I have only ever been called by sets/two pair or AA (no-one likes to fold AA even though it is obv the same as AK or JJ here).

[dwayne110]

Quote from: dwayne110 on February 23, 2013, 11:34:09 PM
makes sense honeybadger - how would your approach on the river change if you thought the villain was a weak player (i.e. and may not associate this line with strength)?

I'd try to have a set instead of third pair


Lol - I suppose that was my point, it's likely to get snapped off if the weak player is holding A-K/K-Q for example.

Surely a raise to $350 is going to achieve the same result most of the time, saving us the $250 villain would have back if he shoves the rest as he'll presume we have no fold equity? Or do you consider this looks more 'bluffy' by not going full max value?

[pleno1]

try to think in ranges dwayne, not in a vacuum.

[Honeybadger]

Surely a raise to $350 is going to achieve the same result most of the time, saving us the $250 villain would have back if he shoves the rest as he'll presume we have no fold equity? Or do you consider this looks more 'bluffy' by not going full max value?

Maybe, maybe not. It's impossible to know how villain will interpret different raise sizes.

But the larger we make our raise size the greater number of bluff combos we are allowed to have to balance our value hands.

[SuuPRlim]

Surely a raise to $350 is going to achieve the same result most of the time, saving us the $250 villain would have back if he shoves the rest as he'll presume we have no fold equity? Or do you consider this looks more 'bluffy' by not going full max value?

Maybe, maybe not. It's impossible to know how villain will interpret different raise sizes.

But the larger we make our raise size the greater number of bluff combos we are allowed to have to balance our value hands.

This is perhaps one of the most complicated but essential pieces of game theory for people to get their heads around.

[Oxford_HRV]

Surely a raise to $350 is going to achieve the same result most of the time, saving us the $250 villain would have back if he shoves the rest as he'll presume we have no fold equity? Or do you consider this looks more 'bluffy' by not going full max value?

Maybe, maybe not. It's impossible to know how villain will interpret different raise sizes.

But the larger we make our raise size the greater number of bluff combos we are allowed to have to balance our value hands.

This is perhaps one of the most complicated but essential pieces of game theory for people to get their heads around.

but what if villain adapts and becomes clever and starts calling lighter with TPTK ect,, realising we are adding more bluff combos to are larger raise sizing's should we be adjusting to near enough no bluff combos OTR and then try to build up and construct another perceived range but continue with the same sizing, losing potential value??   this is something i have always found hard to adjust to myself.
personally i think this bluff is great, i cant see what villains UTG range pre can call off with on this board

[dwayne110]

Thanks for the feedback guys, I'm trying to develop my game which is why I keep throwing my 2 pence in on these PHA hands!  I've just been reading this article by Phil Galfond which was written in 2007 and to me seems a good starting basic for hand range analysis? How relevant/strong would you say this material is now? :

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/poker/columns/story?columnist=bluff_magazine&id=2817110


 

[titaniumbean]

G Bucks in an important concept to understand, once you understand sklansky bux and general theory of poker (sklansky early book) stuff.

[rfgqqabc]

G Bucks in an important concept to understand, once you understand sklansky bux and general theory of poker (sklansky early book) stuff.

Probably the most important article you could read. Probably read it 5+ times myself and its time for one more!

[SuuPRlim]

Surely a raise to $350 is going to achieve the same result most of the time, saving us the $250 villain would have back if he shoves the rest as he'll presume we have no fold equity? Or do you consider this looks more 'bluffy' by not going full max value?

Maybe, maybe not. It's impossible to know how villain will interpret different raise sizes.

But the larger we make our raise size the greater number of bluff combos we are allowed to have to balance our value hands.

This is perhaps one of the most complicated but essential pieces of game theory for people to get their heads around.

but what if villain adapts and becomes clever and starts calling lighter with TPTK ect,, realising we are adding more bluff combos to are larger raise sizing's should we be adjusting to near enough no bluff combos OTR and then try to build up and construct another perceived range but continue with the same sizing, losing potential value??   this is something i have always found hard to adjust to myself.
personally i think this bluff is great, i cant see what villains UTG range pre can call off with on this board

from a GTO perspective and we're onto Game Theory as opposed to practical application here, providing you have the right amount of bluffs and value bets then your villain can't actually exploit you theoretically he can just find the appropiate calling frequency to break even against your range, and the more bluffs you're "allowed" to have in a spot then the more flexibility you'll have generally in the previous streets.