A semi coherent thought

[sauce123]

I love bluff overbetting, I overbet with my strong made hands frequently enough to balance, and I've come to realize that a bluff overbet-specially on the river, is significantly more +ev than a psb or half psb. (in the right situation)

Example: I raise in CO with QJs BB calls

flop T53 check, I bet 3/4 he calls.

turn 2 check check

River 7 check I bet 1.2-1.4x pot he folds top pair and all underpairs which make up most of a caller in the BBs range which he doesnt CR or lead on turn or river. Theres lots of other situations- like where im pretty sure my opponent doesn't have a one card straight but will call a psb with one pair, 2pair or a set and my hand is less defined than his. Given my hand is undefined and consistent with hitting a scary river, all I have to do is find the bet size which cuts his odds down to the point where he cant profitable call with a decent made hand, without making my bet so big it looks ridiculously suspicious. Does this make sense? As it is something I want to incorporate into my game, in 3bet pots and other situations where I think I can get regs to fold overpairs, or TPTK.

[SmackinYaUp]

It would be interesting to come up with some call ranges and then try to assign a % that they will fold each hand to your big bluffs. I think bluff over betting can be useful to get your legit overbets called but we need to figure out the EV of certain bet sizes.

One thing to keep in mind is sklansky's theory that bluff sizes and opponent folding ranges are not linear - in other words you can't just assume that a $100 bet will fold all one pair hands, a $200 will fold all 2 pairs, and $300 will fold all trips. I think I agree with the theory.

Last of all are the non math things like being seen with your stack in the middle, acting crazy and scary and making opponents timid at the wrong time and cally at the right times.

[sauce123]

SmackinYaUp- actually sklanskys graph in NLTaP was exactly what made me make this post. If my opponents hand ranges are frequently made up of 25% missed draws, 35% mid PP, 25% TP and 15% two pair or better, which I think is quite accurate for OOP regs at 600nl when faced with a bet/bet/? or bet/checkcheck line from me. I would say a PSB folds the missed draws and about half of the PPs, with everything else calling or check raising. I think an overbet folds out all but that 15% and maybe TPTK for about .2-.5 of the pot extra, as well as giving some good metagame. So given this information an overbet bluff could be optimal in quite a few situations (it also discourages CR bluffing)

I spend a lot of time considering why Mahatma was so good in his prime lol. Also, when I am playing over 3k hands a month with some of the same regs, I want to mix in small donk bets, block bets, fake block bets, overbets, min raises and all kinds of weird shit into my game, because the best regs at 3/6 are definitely thinking on multiple levels and remembering past hands.

[IowaSkinsFan]

interesting post
PokerStars Game #9022584370: Hold'em No Limit ($0.50/$1.00) - 2007/03/21 - 21:10:41 (ET)
Table 'Ehrdni' 6-max Seat #6 is the button
Seat 1: Reynolds XO ($100.50 in chips)
Seat 2: Bacon Mmmm ($105.90 in chips)
Seat 3: redgrape ($181.35 in chips)
Seat 4: gamblinM ($65.10 in chips)
Seat 5: DIDURAZE? ($102.95 in chips)
Seat 6: thee0ne ($119.60 in chips)
Reynolds XO: posts small blind $0.50
Bacon Mmmm: posts big blind $1
*** HOLE CARDS ***
Dealt to redgrape [Tc Ad]
redgrape: raises $3 to $4
gamblinM: folds
DIDURAZE?: folds
thee0ne: calls $4
Reynolds XO: folds
Bacon Mmmm: folds
*** FLOP *** [9c 4s Jh]
redgrape: bets $7
thee0ne: calls $7
*** TURN *** [9c 4s Jh] [5h]
redgrape: bets $18
thee0ne: calls $18
*** RIVER *** [9c 4s Jh 5h] [5c]
redgrape: bets $152.35 and is all-in
thee0ne: folds
redgrape collected $56.60 from pot
*** SUMMARY ***
Total pot $59.50 | Rake $2.90
Board [9c 4s Jh 5h 5c]
Seat 1: Reynolds XO (small blind) folded before Flop
Seat 2: Bacon Mmmm (big blind) folded before Flop
Seat 3: redgrape collected ($56.60)
Seat 4: gamblinM folded before Flop (didn't bet)
Seat 5: DIDURAZE? folded before Flop (didn't bet)
Seat 6: thee0ne (button) folded on the River

By the river I'm almost positive he has QJ-AJgiven the action.

[sauce123]

ISF- Ballin

[gabe]

i never fold top pair after the turn goes check check

[sauce123]

gabe- against u there will be no gaps btw barrels.

[IowaSkinsFan]

lol. real thoughts.

For non meta game purposes, overbet bluffs are pretty worthless. In fact, you actually have to have ur opponent fold more than 50% of the time, and most of the time it's a lot more like 65%. So the only time u'd want to overbet bluff is if an overbet is going to make them fold a hell of a lot more than a lesser bet. For example, in the hand above i have to have him fold 66% of the time for it to be good.

Overbetting and balancing overbets is really interesting as a strategy. You made the point it makes it a lot harder for opps to call with one pair and two pair hands on straight boards as an example. But here you're making no reference to balancing. Yes he is going to fold here in the beginning, but soon enough a good reg will pick up on it and start calling again.
My question is what is the advantages of overbetting rather than pot size or half pot betting. One advantage I could see is if you feel like opp has a bad feel for your range in a certain situation. Lets examine a situation where the board is JT974. Opp has checked to you. You have merged your range to the point where everytime u bet here you either bet 1/2 pot, pot, or overbet pot. Opp thinks you have air 50% of the time and a straight 50% of the time, so he is calling with anything better than a pair (this is obviously never the case in real poker, unless u are extremely spewy).
However, your range is actually 65% of the time you have the straight, and 35% of the time you don't.
Therefore, opp is losing money everytime he calls, BUT MORE money for the more you bet. Therefore, your range here would want to be a merged push, instead of a merged 1/2 pot bet or pot bet.

OBVIOUSLY, ranges aren't this simple, and opp is going to have a wider range for less of a bet, because of better pot odds.
But the moral of the above statement is that if you feel like opp thinks you're bluffing more than you actually are, your range here should be merged towards the biggest bet possible.

[sauce123]

good post-

[IowaSkinsFan]

You just mentioned to me that since you're getting much less amount of calls from overbets your range is extremely shaded which I thought was a very good point.

[sauce123]

yea im mad shady

[IowaSkinsFan]

Spot that makes perfect sense to overbet in.

Full Tilt Poker Game #2063108268: Table Halbert (heads up) - $300/$600 - No Limit Hold'em - 22:55:17 ET - 2007/03/24
Seat 1: Ram Vaswani ($198,961.25)
Seat 2: sbrugby ($206,970.25)
sbrugby posts the small blind of $300
Ram Vaswani posts the big blind of $600
The button is in seat #2
*** HOLE CARDS ***
sbrugby raises to $1,800
Ram Vaswani calls $1,200
*** FLOP *** [4s 3s 7s]
Ram Vaswani checks
sbrugby bets $3,100
Ram Vaswani calls $3,100
*** TURN *** [4s 3s 7s] [Th]
Ram Vaswani checks
sbrugby bets $9,200
Ram Vaswani calls $9,200
*** RIVER *** [4s 3s 7s Th] [5s]
Ram Vaswani checks
sbrugby bets $92,000

[sauce123]

sbrugby can read minds so overbetting vs him is spew in the extreme. Actually, betting against him is spew.

[bode]

sbrugby can read souls ...

FYP