I'm stuck here guys.

[spoonitnow]

A random number of things really "clicked" lately, and I'm really just seeking confirmation and discussion on these things. I'll try to put this the best I can, but a lot of it still seems fairly abstract to me in ways that are hard to describe, but here we go.

I posted a hand in the FR forum where I 3-bet a 37/10's raise from the SB with AQs (villain was three seats off of the button). The rest of the hand isn't so important, but in the discussion I noted that the wider our 3-betting range, the more value our big pairs [and AK] hold since people will pay them more money per hand on average.

A few weeks/months ago I remember reading an interview or some other post on ISF's blog (I think) where someone was talking about "blending" value-betting ranges and bluffs post-flop. The idea was like sometimes when you're value-betting you're not even sure if you're ahead of his range or not so you're not sure if you're really value-betting or bluffing. I sort of understood whatever example was given, but I didn't understand the concept. Then the AQs thread above happened and I woke up in the middle of the night two nights ago thinking about the following:

When we widen our range in any spot, our range is strengthened in terms of EV because the best hands we hold will yield more value as our opponents adjust. This applies to our big pairs gaining value when we 3-bet preflop more, and this applies to situations where we don't know if we're ahead or not but we bet when it's close anyway.

I'm pretty sure that this is an instance of second-level thinking. We do something based on what we think our opponent thinks we have. Since the only other general thing I really understood about second-level thinking had to do with ISF's theorem, I went back and read over that like six times and now I'm just like holy crap because it seemed so much clearer this time.

So consider any situation where our apparent range is ahead of our opponent's range. ISF's theorem tells us we should bluff and semibluff more often, but it seems very closely related to what's going on when we 3-bet a wider range than before or when we "blend" our value-betting and bluffing ranges. I'm just not exactly sure how yet.

I'm trying to transcend these individual applications and figure out what concept is at work, and I'm having a hard time. The Shania explains quite a bit of it in a more general sense, but I feel like there's something in between that I'm missing. Like if these applications are on one level, and like four levels up there is the Shania, I'm missing everything on the three levels between and like half of the three levels before.

[Chopper]

i'm not sure i can even attempt to help here because i dont see a question in here. more like a thought process that got stuck...like writer's block?

if you are having trouble with the "blending" of value-betting and bluffing, i think you hit it on the head. in a closer situation, like AQs, we may both miss, but may both still think we are WA/WB, therefore, our "bluff" may take the pot, but we may run into someone better or messing with us? either way, if we fire, we open the door to firing when we hit and being thought of as "full of shit?" thereby, paying off our better hands. at least, thats how i understand it.

to me, your "concept issue" here seems like you are caught on a branch of Shania's tree somewhere on the same branch that ISF's theorem kicks in?

Shania makes perfect sense, when applied to 3betting, imo. its really just a matter of how wide do you want to go, and how wide are you considering "premiums" that will get paid under the principle? it doesnt do a lot of good to open up as far as 57s, if you dont open up what you call a "premium," too.

[euphoricism]

Thats the point of ISF theorem, though.

[spoonitnow]

i'm not sure i can even attempt to help here because i dont see a question in here. more like a thought process that got stuck...like writer's block?

You're correct there.

if you are having trouble with the "blending" of value-betting and bluffing, i think you hit it on the head. in a closer situation, like AQs, we may both miss, but may both still think we are WA/WB, therefore, our "bluff" may take the pot, but we may run into someone better or messing with us? either way, if we fire, we open the door to firing when we hit and being thought of as "full of shit?" thereby, paying off our better hands. at least, thats how i understand it.

I wasn't really talking about that AQs hand's flop action, but I know the connection you're trying to draw. The reason I don't think the flop play there relates to the blending of bluff and value bets is that we can never think that we're betting for value if we c-bet that flop. This more resembles an ISF theorem spot in the sense that maybe we should bluff the flop more often since our range seems to include more strong hands, but I don't think it applies enough to matter since most of villain's range is calling us down anyway.

to me, your "concept issue" here seems like you are caught on a branch of Shania's tree somewhere on the same branch that ISF's theorem kicks in?

Shania makes perfect sense, when applied to 3betting, imo. its really just a matter of how wide do you want to go, and how wide are you considering "premiums" that will get paid under the principle? it doesnt do a lot of good to open up as far as 57s, if you dont open up what you call a "premium," too.

This could be the case. Or the concept I'm seeking could be on a similar level as ISF's theorem but just down a different "branch". I understand that there will be some point of equilibrium in each scenario we meet where the value the best part of our range gains due to opening up will balance with the value we lose by playing more hands.

This point of equilibrium must exist, but I think that for the time being it's probably impossible (and impractical) to find exactly in any given scenario because I honestly don't think any two spots in NLHE are the same. The cards might come off exactly the same against the exact same opponents, but the action of the hands before and what order they've came in will change things up to create a different scenario each and every time.

Thats the point of ISF theorem, though.

I thought ISF's theorem was about taking advantage of a spot where your range seems much stronger than your opponent's by representing what your opponent already thinks you might have.

[jyms]

I think I will hit you up on AIM. Your having some of the issues I seem to be having, in that there seems to be no question you can ask to figure out that next step.

This is something to think about.

I understand that there will be some point of equilibrium in each scenario we meet where the value the best part of our range gains due to opening up will balance with the value we lose by playing more hands.

This point of equilibrium must exist, but I think that for the time being it's probably impossible (and impractical) to find exactly in any given scenario because I honestly don't think any two spots in NLHE are the same. The cards might come off exactly the same against the exact same opponents, but the action of the hands before and what order they've came in will change things up to create a different scenario each and every time.

I don't think you can solve this as static. It's in finding how and where to adjust our ranges depending on other factors, including opponents that adjust or don't, which is making a lot of this a riddle. I think the answers are lying in the table dynamics and not your play.

I'm not sure if that is going in the right direction or not. A lot of what you are discussing here is just to much of a back and forth to solve within a forum format.

[spoonitnow]

I think I will hit you up on AIM. Your having some of the issues I seem to be having, in that there seems to be no question you can ask to figure out that next step.

This is something to think about.

I understand that there will be some point of equilibrium in each scenario we meet where the value the best part of our range gains due to opening up will balance with the value we lose by playing more hands.

This point of equilibrium must exist, but I think that for the time being it's probably impossible (and impractical) to find exactly in any given scenario because I honestly don't think any two spots in NLHE are the same. The cards might come off exactly the same against the exact same opponents, but the action of the hands before and what order they've came in will change things up to create a different scenario each and every time.

I don't think you can solve this as static. It's in finding how and where to adjust our ranges depending on other factors, including opponents that adjust or don't, which is making a lot of this a riddle. I think the answers are lying in the table dynamics and not your play.

I'm not sure if that is going in the right direction or not. A lot of what you are discussing here is just to much of a back and forth to solve within a forum format.

Let me clarify. With an infinite understanding of poker and of your opponents and of the mathematics involved, I think that a static range could be found in any single situation. However, the point I was trying to make in the last paragraph is exactly what you said: so much of it resides in table dynamics and other factors that we mere mortals have no way of quantifying in a way that would allow for us to solve for a perfect range in any given spot. And really, even if we could somehow figure out what a perfect range was for some particular situation and given opponent tendencies, our opponents would just adjust and then we'd be at it all over again next time, so it would largely be a waste of time I think.

What's getting me is that it feels like something is there, but just out of reach of my understanding, and it's driving me nuts. I see and feel all of these connections between different things I've thought about and read about before, but I'm having a hard time bringing organization to it.

Also I probably won't be on AIM much for the next few days because I'm moving.

[Chopper]

the "point of equilibrium" to which you refer is the "fulcrum" in the Shania post, yes?

and, no, we cant ever solve for the exact "fulcrum." obviously, that will vary from table to table, and hand to hand...which i think you also said.

i have never been less than thoroughly confused here, and was only trying to foster some conversation so i can "lurk" this one a bit. so, i'll shut up now.

carry on, wayward son(s).

[spoonitnow]

the "point of equilibrium" to which you refer is the "fulcrum" in the Shania post, yes?

and, no, we cant ever solve for the exact "fulcrum." obviously, that will vary from table to table, and hand to hand...which i think you also said.

i have never been less than thoroughly confused here, and was only trying to foster some conversation so i can "lurk" this one a bit. so, i'll shut up now.

carry on, wayward son(s).

Sort of. When I said "point of equilibrium", I think that a much better way to describe what I mean would just be the range(s) that maximizes your equity taking into account all of the facets of the Shania idea. In the original Shania post, I believe the fulcrum referred to an individual hand or hands that were neutral EV in any given spot. As I said in my earlier post, with an infinite understanding of poker and our opponents and whatnot, we probably could pin down an exact fulcrum, but obviously that's out of reach for us in most situations.

There's a whole, whole lot more to this than I'm even beginning to understand, but I'm starting to make connections and generalizations that I haven't before.

Take for example when a beginner learns to play a draw based on pot odds. Then they learn to play based around implied odds, which is a more practical use of pot odds. Then they start to learn about fold equity when being aggressive with draws, and from this learning specific tactics like the free card play. All of this has a sort of telescoping effect that encompasses more and more ideas of poker.

[IowaSkinsFan]

A random number of things really "clicked" lately, and I'm really just seeking confirmation and discussion on these things. I'll try to put this the best I can, but a lot of it still seems fairly abstract to me in ways that are hard to describe, but here we go.

I posted a hand in the FR forum where I 3-bet a 37/10's raise from the SB with AQs (villain was three seats off of the button). The rest of the hand isn't so important, but in the discussion I noted that the wider our 3-betting range, the more value our big pairs [and AK] hold since people will pay them more money per hand on average.

A few weeks/months ago I remember reading an interview or some other post on ISF's blog (I think) where someone was talking about "blending" value-betting ranges and bluffs post-flop. The idea was like sometimes when you're value-betting you're not even sure if you're ahead of his range or not so you're not sure if you're really value-betting or bluffing. I sort of understood whatever example was given, but I didn't understand the concept. Then the AQs thread above happened and I woke up in the middle of the night two nights ago thinking about the following:

When we widen our range in any spot, our range is strengthened in terms of EV because the best hands we hold will yield more value as our opponents adjust. This applies to our big pairs gaining value when we 3-bet preflop more, and this applies to situations where we don't know if we're ahead or not but we bet when it's close anyway.

I'm pretty sure that this is an instance of second-level thinking. We do something based on what we think our opponent thinks we have. Since the only other general thing I really understood about second-level thinking had to do with ISF's theorem, I went back and read over that like six times and now I'm just like holy crap because it seemed so much clearer this time.

So consider any situation where our apparent range is ahead of our opponent's range. ISF's theorem tells us we should bluff and semibluff more often, but it seems very closely related to what's going on when we 3-bet a wider range than before or when we "blend" our value-betting and bluffing ranges. I'm just not exactly sure how yet.

I'm trying to transcend these individual applications and figure out what concept is at work, and I'm having a hard time. The Shania explains quite a bit of it in a more general sense, but I feel like there's something in between that I'm missing. Like if these applications are on one level, and like four levels up there is the Shania, I'm missing everything on the three levels between and like half of the three levels before.

Seems like you have a pretty good understanding of ISF theorem.

The other thing your talking about is aejones, when he talked about "merging" your range, which is essentially just really thin value betting. Its not that hard to explain, but when you valuebet you don't have to necessarily be ahead everytime, just a certain % of the time depending on the situation. River is the easiest example, here let me try to explain.

Look at a typical scenario where our range is ahead of our opponents range. Let "L" Be our hands, and "B" be our opponents hands. The hand is ahead of the other hand when it is above it.
Example:
L
L
B
B

In this case, both L hands are ahead of the B hands.

Now look at a more difficult range example. Assume we are on the river.

L
L
L
B
L
B
L
L
B
L
L
B
L
B
L
B
B

Assuming opp is calling with all B hands, what L hands should we be value betting?

[spoonitnow]

Seems like you have a pretty good understanding of ISF theorem.

The other thing your talking about is aejones, when he talked about "merging" your range, which is essentially just really thin value betting. Its not that hard to explain, but when you valuebet you don't have to necessarily be ahead everytime, just a certain % of the time depending on the situation. River is the easiest example, here let me try to explain.

Look at a typical scenario where our range is ahead of our opponents range. Let "L" Be our hands, and "B" be our opponents hands. The hand is ahead of the other hand when it is above it.
Example:
L
L
B
B

In this case, both L hands are ahead of the B hands.

Now look at a more difficult range example. Assume we are on the river.

L
L
L
B
L*
B
L
L
B
L
L
B-------
L
B
L
B
B

Assuming opp is calling with all B hands, what L hands should we be value betting?

I put a line like ------ beside of [what I think is if I understand this correctly] the midpoint of our opponent's calling range, and it would seem like we need to bet with all of the L hands above that line (so that we get a positive return on our bet). This is assuming each B hand has the same number of possible combinations.

What happens if we start betting with more hands than this? Will our opponent start calling us with more hands? If so, then don't we start getting more value with the L hand that I marked with an asterisk since we will win more often when we bet with it?

L
L
L
B
L*
B
L
L
B
L
L
B-------
L
B
L
B
B

Okay I'm just going to go through this the best I can and see how it turns out. Right now there are 10 L hands and 7 B hands. If we assume that x is the size of our river bet, then each L has the following EV associated with it if each B is equally as likely:

L = x
L = x
L = x
B
L = 6x/7 - x/7 = 5x/7
B
L = 5x/7 - 2x/7 = 3x/7
L = 5x/7 - 2x/7 = 3x/7
B
L = 4x/7 - 3x/7 = x/7
L = 4x/7 - 3x/7 = x/7
B-------
L = 3x/7 - 4x/7 = -x/7
B
L = 2x/7 - 5x/7 = -3x/7
B
B

So the bottom two L hands have a negative EV for a value bet of size x, which seems fairly obvious without this calculation. If we just bet the top 8 hands, then we would end up with an average EV of 0.61x on those 8 hands, or an EV of 0.488x average over each of the possible 10 L hands, assuming each L happens with equal frequency.

I guess what I'm asking is, if we started betting with all L hands (even the ones that are apparently -EV), would villain start calling with a slightly wider range of B's to compensate? Since I don't really know if this change would happen, and even if it did I don't know how big the change would be in our opponent's calling range, let's just suppose there is only one more B added for the sake of example. Then we would end up with:

L = x
L = x
L = x
B
L = 7x/8 - x/8 = 6x/8
B
L = 6x/8 - 2x/8 = 4x/8
L = 6x/8 - 2x/8 = 4x/8
B
L = 5x/8 - 3x/8 = 2x/8
L = 5x/8 - 3x/8 = 2x/8
B
L-------
B
L = 3x/8 - 5x/8 = -2x/8
B
B
B

The L with the line beside of it would now have a neutral EV, but the average EV the L hands that we bet is now 0.5x.

In the first set of hands, we're betting 8 hands for an average EV of 0.61x. So for the 10 possible L hands, we land an average EV of 4.88x/10 = 0.488x. In the second set of hands, we're betting all 10 hands for an average of 0.5x, so now out of the 10 possible L hands we're landing an average EV of 0.5x. I hope this makes sense.

The example I'm trying to give is probably a bit screwed, but I'm really just trying to apply Shania to value betting. I imagine that even if I'm correct, it would be something so subtle that it's practical application would be difficult.

Edit about a half an hour later: The opposite occurred to me as well. If we bet less L hands, suppose only the top 5 or 6 in the original example, then maybe our opponent stops calling with the worst of his B hands to compensate which could cause a net gain or loss for Shania (much like when we start betting with more hands, it could cause a net gain or less for Shania, but often it's going to be hard to decide which). Then it would make sense that we should switch between betting a few more hands and a few less hands than what we deem optimal so that our opponents are always calling either too tight or too loose against us -- I think gabe said something similar about oscillating ranges in some other thread, though I doubt it was in the context of river value betting (not that it matters).

I'm really f'ed up on cold medicines right now so if some of this doesn't qualify as English then I'll come back and revise later.

[IowaSkinsFan]

On your random other point, Do you see whats happening? More hands you can bet for value the more money you make, and the more you can bluff.

On another point, you seem to completely disregard that you just said that we should vbet a hand that is losing to a bunch of hands. Do you really do this?

Play around with this latter. For example, most ranges look more like this.

L
L
L
L
B
B
B
B
B
B
.
.
.
L
L
L

But what if we know opp has midpair or worse on something like a KK443 board? Then his range is better documented like this.

L
L
L
x
x
x
x
x
x...
B
B
B
L
L
L

Where x represents hand we would raise (or call, whatever we did) preflop. What is something we can do here to take advantage of this situation?

[spoonitnow]

On your random other point, Do you see whats happening? More hands you can bet for value the more money you make, and the more you can bluff.

Right.

On another point, you seem to completely disregard that you just said that we should vbet a hand that is losing to a bunch of hands. Do you really do this?

I know that I disregarded the assessment I made earlier, but I'm just sort of thinking outloud about what happens when our villain adjusts to a wider betting range. If villain doesn't adjust then we're throwing away money, so I'm starting to think that maybe this is a bad place to try to apply the idea I was talking about. And no, I don't really do this.... well not on purpose anyway =)

Play around with this latter. For example, most ranges look more like this.

L
L
L
L
B
B
B
B
B
B
.
.
.
L
L
L

I think I get this. There tends to be a pretty clear boundary in a lot of spots between what hands we should be value betting with and what hands we shouldn't be value betting with. Also, I've never seen this type of visual used in discussion, though I've thought about stuff sort of like this for a while now.

But what if we know opp has midpair or worse on something like a KK443 board? Then his range is better documented like this.

L
L
L
x
x
x
x
x
x...
B
B
B
L
L
L

Where x represents hand we would raise (or call, whatever we did) preflop. What is something we can do here to take advantage of this situation?

If I'm interpreting this correctly, then it seems sort of like an ISF theorem spot where we should bluff more often because there are more hands in our apparent range that beat villain. (I'm assuming that the x's are hands in our range, not villain's.)

[IowaSkinsFan]

Last part your not getting. I'm trying to tell you that strength of your hand isn't relative to situation. No one actually says this, but they sure as hell play like it. If we simply view a situation as "this is our percieved range or range and this is our opponents range so whats the optimal betting/sizing/folding here?" We should also look at it as "How could I move around my ranges to put more hands in a spot where there is the maximum possible value for that hand/range?"

This is what im talking about if you still don't get it.

... Hmm weird looked for an article where I talk about this, I thought I did but apparently I didn't. I'll do that next week. See if you get it and ill answer this more on next friday.

[daven]

the wider our 3-betting range, the more value our big pairs [and AK] hold since people will pay them more money per hand on average.

When we widen our range in any spot, our range is strengthened in terms of EV because the best hands we hold will yield more value as our opponents adjust.

is there a risk that we over-estimate how much opp is noticing us 3-betting (not an hud stat), or our range when we do so? in fact, how many opponents really study other regs to see how they play their ranges? especially full ring

interesting thought that the bluffing and value-betting ranges blend BECAUSE it's difficult to tell which is which...

grain of salt obviously, i'm still not confident that i beat 50nl, and have immense amounts yet to learn/understand/absorb

[Robb]

Spoon and ISF talking really cool shit I barely comprehend. Nirvana.

[spoonitnow]

Last part your not getting. I'm trying to tell you that strength of your hand isn't relative to situation. No one actually says this, but they sure as hell play like it. If we simply view a situation as "this is our percieved range or range and this is our opponents range so whats the optimal betting/sizing/folding here?" We should also look at it as "How could I move around my ranges to put more hands in a spot where there is the maximum possible value for that hand/range?"

This is what im talking about if you still don't get it.

... Hmm weird looked for an article where I talk about this, I thought I did but apparently I didn't. I'll do that next week. See if you get it and ill answer this more on next friday.

I think maybe your wording is throwing me off, but it's still first thing in the morning so I'll come back to this in a bit and see if it makes anymore sense =)

Edit: Maybe we should bet/fold with our worse hands and check/call with our better hands since that seems the way to get the most value out of each. I'm still sort of stuck on this. (Thank you, btw.)

the wider our 3-betting range, the more value our big pairs [and AK] hold since people will pay them more money per hand on average.

When we widen our range in any spot, our range is strengthened in terms of EV because the best hands we hold will yield more value as our opponents adjust.

is there a risk that we over-estimate how much opp is noticing us 3-betting (not an hud stat), or our range when we do so? in fact, how many opponents really study other regs to see how they play their ranges? especially full ring

interesting thought that the bluffing and value-betting ranges blend BECAUSE it's difficult to tell which is which...

grain of salt obviously, i'm still not confident that i beat 50nl, and have immense amounts yet to learn/understand/absorb

If your opponent isn't adjusting to how much you 3-bet then you can rape him with 3-bets in position a lot of the time. I do understand what you're saying though, and yes that is a risk. For what it's worth, in my personal full ring experience, it seems that one of the first places everyone really starts to notice how opponents play is in 3-bet pots.

[IowaSkinsFan]

Okay, lets say we have a spot where opp has a wide, but relatively weak range. We also tend to have a weak range, besides a small top of our range. Because of this, we can't bluff very much if opp is any good because he is going to look us up everytime. Therefore, there is much more value in this spot than in a spot where you have a super strong range. So you may want to start occasionally doing something much different with your nut/good hands to get to that spot. Maybe something like check behind the flop sometimes or bet/check instead of bet/bet more often, but ofc not always.

[spoonitnow]

Okay, lets say we have a spot where opp has a wide, but relatively weak range. We also tend to have a weak range, besides a small top of our range. Because of this, we can't bluff very much if opp is any good because he is going to look us up everytime. Therefore, there is much more value in this spot than in a spot where you have a super strong range. So you may want to start occasionally doing something much different with your nut/good hands to get to that spot. Maybe something like check behind the flop sometimes or bet/check instead of bet/bet more often, but ofc not always.

Oh. Durka durka *rocks like a retard*.

Yeah I do this a bit. I guess with the model you gave I didn't really associate it with that kind of spot or something, but now I'm pretty sure I get it.

Also, now that I've thought more about that model, my ISF theorem comment about the same spot makes absolutely no sense.

Edit: So let's suppose just for the sake of discussion (and to make sure I'm hitting upon the right idea) that I have a tight/aggressive image and opened AK from MP, and a semi-loose/passive called from the CO with 100bb effective stacks. The flop comes KK4 rainbow.

If I c-bet and am called, then immediately I know that the vast majority of villain's range that would ever call another bet is pocket pairs. Against this range I doubt that I can get two more streets of value unless there are unusual circumstances, so I should be checking the turn often. Suppose the turn was a 4 and I check. This gives the opponent a chance to bluff at the pot, as well as a chance to check behind and catch a worse boat (however much value that may be worth). If villain checks behind, and say a 3 comes on the river, then villain is more likely to call a bet here than to call a 2nd barrel on the turn I would think.

Note: on the flop I guess we could check here also, though it seems sort of transparent (or maybe it's just me).

Do I have close to the right idea of what type of spot you're talking about or am I way off?

[IowaSkinsFan]

I think your faking yourself out. I just mean a random "spot" where your range is weak. Like if you called a preflop raise and check 2 streets i would think you are really weak. If you checked a strong hand 2 streets i guaranteed you'd get called much lighter than if you had previously bet twice. So a strong hand has worse value on the river if you bet twice than if you checked twice (if you don't include pot size). The reason is because your range is much weaker when you check twice than if you bet twice (for most every person).

[spoonitnow]

I think your faking yourself out. I just mean a random "spot" where your range is weak. Like if you called a preflop raise and check 2 streets i would think you are really weak. If you checked a strong hand 2 streets i guaranteed you'd get called much lighter than if you had previously bet twice. So a strong hand has worse value on the river if you bet twice than if you checked twice (if you don't include pot size). The reason is because your range is much weaker when you check twice than if you bet twice (for most every person).

You're right, I'm thinking waaaay too hard about this.

I guess it's just a specific example of how your action during a hand affects the value your range has.

[Chopper]

... I just mean a random "spot" where your range is weak. Like if you called a preflop raise and check 2 streets i would think you are really weak. If you checked a strong hand 2 streets i guaranteed you'd get called much lighter than if you had previously bet twice.

ok, i get what you are saying, theoretically, but why would we ever do this? arent we inviting ourselves to be outdrawn? or, arent we missing a street of value, and possibly inducing a river bluff that would lead to a bigger pot for our "strong" hand than checking two streets and getting one call on a valuebet?

the only situation i can think of doing this in is AK with A X X X X board where we think villain folds off to any bet.

it just seems like we are costing ourselves money in a spot like this...most times. but, i guess thats short-term thinking?

[Jager]

The 'merging range' concept really applies to river betting. Since there all hands are final on the river, you can either bluff or value bet. When you start value betting thin, when you may get better hands to fold or you may be getting worse hands to call, your range is becoming blurred or merged. It becomes hard to put you on a range of hands you are betting. This comes back to your point about having a wider range gets our bigger hands paid, just like in 3betting light.

Now when you see where you are goingwith this, you will start to see that poker is about only a few things: ranges, adjusting, and betting(to bluff/semibluff and for value). The trick is it all starts with your range vs their range given a baord texture. The more we know about their range the more we can adjust our range to maximize their weaknesses and manipulate them. Also the converse is true, the more they know about our range the more they can adjust, the question is will they? If we can succesfully deduce their range then we increase our betting effectiveness, which in turn increases our profits. If we adjust better than them, we increase our betting effectiveness. The less they adjust, the easier our job becomes.

[IowaSkinsFan]

... I just mean a random "spot" where your range is weak. Like if you called a preflop raise and check 2 streets i would think you are really weak. If you checked a strong hand 2 streets i guaranteed you'd get called much lighter than if you had previously bet twice.

ok, i get what you are saying, theoretically, but why would we ever do this? arent we inviting ourselves to be outdrawn? or, arent we missing a street of value, and possibly inducing a river bluff that would lead to a bigger pot for our "strong" hand than checking two streets and getting one call on a valuebet?

the only situation i can think of doing this in is AK with A X X X X board where we think villain folds off to any bet.

it just seems like we are costing ourselves money in a spot like this...most times. but, i guess thats short-term thinking?

No this is fine thinking, I think you just took my post too literally! I'm not advocating checking two streets with some super strong hand a lot or anything, or maybe even ever, but using extreme examples seem to be easier to understand.

And with every decision, we have to weigh out every factor. Sometimes certain factors don't outweigh others.

[Chopper]

this is funny. the light bulb just clicked as to why all the damned answers are so damned vague.

i'm actually laughing to myself that i figured out that the answer really truly always is......it depends.

jesus christ that's funny.

[spoonitnow]

Now when you see where you are goingwith this, you will start to see that poker is about only a few things: ranges, adjusting, and betting(to bluff/semibluff and for value)...

See I had a feeling about this, and had started to think about everything poker-related in terms of ranges and betting with adjustments being a natural consequence, but this thread has pretty much confirmed this, so thank you guys. I feel like I'm close to a major break-through in my game.

[Robb]

I feel like I'm close to a major break-through in my game.

Good luck! I've been following this thread with interest, though I only really get about a third of what you and ISF say. I just had a major breakthrough in my game about 17 levels of thoughts lower than where you're at with this. It's funny how you know - absolutely know - you're on to something that will launch your poker understanding forward. But still, you can't quite put your finger on it. And then, voila. Hope it all crystallizes soon.

Keep us updated on where this goes and how it helps your game.

[spoonitnow]

I thought I'd come back with an update. I eventually figured out what I was missing. It's kind of hard to describe, but I'll try to explain the best I can with an example.

Say we're playing some full ring and we have 2 2 and open raise from HJ and the button calls. Villain is a 13/10 multi-tabling set-miner Dan Harrington wannabe. The flop comes K T 3. Now you can start thinking about what ranges each person has and all that and go from there, but another way is to just look at what each option you have accomplishes. Here we can bet or check.

Suppose we investigate the possibility of betting. The point of a bet is to either get a better hand to fold, give a drawing hand bad odds to call, or get value from a worse hand. If we bet then we could be giving a drawing hand worse odds to hit, or get a better hand to fold (like 44-99 or even Tx depending on how weak the guy is). Now suppose we investigate checking. There are similar reasons that we will ever check in some situation, so we apply those here and see which match up best, etc etc.

And yeah, this is really really really basic stuff.

Now these thought processes go hand-in-hand with range considerations, equity evaluations, ideas similar to Renton's "ABCD Theorem" thingy where we try to consider how to play our whole range, and considerations for a balanced strategy when I'm making poker decisions.

[Ltrain]

I have been following this thread and you all lost me somewhere in the middle. If we are analyzing when to bet for value, I played FR and 6max limit for years and most turn and river betting in limit is learning how to value bet. Try reading SSHE by Ed Miller for limit play and you will better understand value betting concepts.

Some additional thoughts to take you further down the rabbit hole:

If you were to bet/raise every hand you wanted to play preflop and continued this play post flop (nuts, draws, semi-bluffs, air) wouldn't you be randomizing your hands simply by your uniformity of betting to the point Villian would have no idea what you hold? Doesn't this explain why c-bets work so well?

A value bet is a bet without the best hand, but a bet when we think we have the best hand vis-a-vis our opponent. If we are bluffing on early streets, meaning we are betting without thinking we have the best hand to induce a fold, but still have outs to fall back on if called, isn't this a semi-bluff? Wouldn't the "blending" between value betting and semi-bluffing be simply because we can't mathematically quantify in some situations whether we are actually ahead, or slightly behind and may need our outs to win? As an aside, according to Theory of Poker, semi-bluffs are the most powerful plays in poker and in limit, semi-bluffs are even more important because the tendancy of the villian is to call more often than in no limit.

According to Theory of Poker, if we look at bluffing in a vaccum our bluffing frequency should be tied to our expected probability of winning the pot. For example, if the amount I am considering bluffing is 1/4 of the pot, I must expect that my bluff will net me the pot at least one in every 4 times I bluff my expected amount. If I don't have at least this expectation, I should fold. This is also why you don't need to win every time you bluff for it to be the right play, and as the pot amount goes up, your payoff for bluffing also goes up, but inversely the odds of your opponent folding go down.

[spoonitnow]

This isn't particularly deep stuff.

[Ltrain]

It doesn't have to be "deep"; but its fundamentals of the game. One of the reasons I like reading Sklansky is he can explain poker fundamentals in very simple terms, but that does not mean it was easy for him to create the explanation nor does it mean everyone will follow what should be "obvious".

Sports are a good analogy to describe the importance of fundamentals. By consistently practicing and reviewing basic fundamentals, you get better at what you do. For example, explaining how to shoot a free throw is easy, but you have to practice the same basic movement continuously if you want to have a text book shot. There reason why coaches kids do very well at their respective sports is because they are fundamentally sound.

If the fundamentals I described are just review, great, but it never hurts to review basic concepts and it may not be review for some people. We all get what, 20-30 seconds tops to make a choice at an online table? It's not like we have enough time to pull out the old abacus and create complex equations on what choice to make.

[BankItDrew]

spoon, why are you playing full stack poker now? weren't you a shorty religious nut case?

[spoonitnow]

spoon, why are you playing full stack poker now? weren't you a shorty religious nut case?

If I ever meet you IRL then I'm going to kick you in the balls just for that.

[BankItDrew]

spoon, why are you playing full stack poker now? weren't you a shorty religious nut case?

If I ever meet you IRL then I'm going to kick you in the balls just for that.

Why?

[Miffed22001]

I think your faking yourself out. I just mean a random "spot" where your range is weak. Like if you called a preflop raise and check 2 streets i would think you are really weak. If you checked a strong hand 2 streets i guaranteed you'd get called much lighter than if you had previously bet twice. So a strong hand has worse value on the river if you bet twice than if you checked twice (if you don't include pot size). The reason is because your range is much weaker when you check twice than if you bet twice (for most every person).

this is pretty eye-opening.