You know when you are driving down a street you don't usually drive down, and it connects to another road you do know, and all of a sudden you are like "oh, so these roads connect, i didn't know I could take this route to get here." That's what this video just did for me.
For the river bet situation, I think of it like this. Suppose you bet pot. The mdf for defender is the amount in the pot before the bet divided by the amount after the bet, or 1/2. If you bet 2 pot, it’s 1/3. If you bet 1/2 pot, 2/3. Simple. Just divide pot before bet by pot after bet. For bluff ratio it’s bet to pot after call. E.g. bet pot. That’s one pot. After call, there’s 3 pot bets total, so it’s 1/3 bluff ratio. If you bet half pot, it’s 1/2 pot to 2 pots (bet to pot after call). If you bet 2 pots, it’s 2 pots to 5 (there was one pot before the bet, so after 2 pot bet is called, 5 total). I like this method because with a little practice, it’s very easy to visualize, and I find the visualization makes it much easier. And it works easily for any bet size if you think of it in terms of a fraction of the pot.
For 15k hands I am winning over 40bb/100 in games that are wild and no one folds. I recognize that I’m under folding but it’s exploitative. I will show maybe one bluff a night but it’s usually in a pot when I’m NOT in a pot with the loose splashy people I would never bluff. It’s enough to get called many many times. GTO is not good for the games I am in.
Looking at minute 24:02, villain's final calling range is 34.6 %. However, looking at minute 24:07, villain, as per GTOW, calls 66.9% on the river. Might you please explain what I am missing here?
I'm asking my question a little late and I doubt I'll get an answer but that's okay haha. Already sincere thanks for all your great videos, they are so interesting! In fact I was wondering, let's imagine that an opponent does not have sufficient bluffs on the turn, this therefore means that he is value oriented and that on the river he often goes all in whether it is bluffing or value. As a result, we will never recover our call on the turn as theory would have it or an opponent will abandon some of his hands on the river. Is that right? Furthermore, does the pure theory play like this to encourage the player to pay more on the turn and thus be paid by less good hands on the river part of the time? I understand that it is to be balanced for the most part but if an opponent does not have the right proportion of value/bluff ratio then he will not be balanced and exploitable, right? Thank you in advance and I hope I was clear (Sorry if the English is average, the translator is not great)
Are the merged flop raises done just for defending enough against flop 3bets? I guess It would be hard to defend to 3bets if we raise 75% pure bluffs on the flop
Do you know of any material that incrementally builds upon the multi street nuts or air game? Your calculator with the bluff equity variable fits this description. But is there any toy game material out there that adds 1 street value hands mixed in with nuts, or overlapping ranges, or villain raise options, or value bets that may be downgraded on later streets... I'm picturing a series of toy games that gets closer and closer to the real game. Is there any work like that out there?
The toy games get extremely complicated as you add different hand classes and more lines. It quickly becomes far too difficult to calculate without a computer. Mathematics of Poker models some of them using the [0,1 game] but it's not an easy read.
What if the opponent is allowed to raise also? This opens the possibility of counterbluffing. I would suspect that a range on the flop that consists of 3/4 bluffs would be very susceptible to that. Counterbluffs would hinder the aggressor to realize his foldequity.
For the opponent to bluff-raise they need to also be able to represent value. This model uses perfectly polarized ranges, so the defender has no traps, only bluff-catchers relative to our range. You'd need a more sophisticated model for this scenario. But yes you're right! It only takes a few traps in the defenders range to drastically shift our strategy. I cover river models with traps in this article: blog.gtowizard.com/how-to-solve-toy-games/
As stated at the beginning of the video: The goal is not to be balanced, but rather to understand where the line is. It's easier to exploit if you know how often people ought to be bluffing, value betting, or calling.
@@FCarraro1 the people that are getting poker strategy from RU-vid. I should say that my comment is tongue in cheek. These videos are great for helping beginners understand why we use GTO, and I do wholeheartedly agree with GTOWizards comment above.
I cant figure out how you’re calculating give ups from the river without already knowing them. Like how did you get 6 from 8 and 4. I get that 18 * .33 is 6. But in that instance how did you get 18. Trying to make my own chart for 1/3 sizing
Thats what i had missgiving too, i reviewed a lot time of those 3 colums i can understand value 8 8 8 bluffs 4,but the give up..... and also thanks for the replys
@@GTOWizard it likes u have to bet 2/3 of total combos at the river and give up 1/3 of combs.And in the 2/3 u have 1/3 bluffs. it shows like reversed geometric.
@@GTOWizard I understand that the defender should call with MDF in a polarized toy game on river. But is it correct in flop and turn because there can be possibility of future bet in next streets, which can make our call not profitable?
This is a great question without a clear answer. You can treat semibluffs as bluffs that sometimes become value bets on future streets. The math gets a bit more complicated, but I believe Janda did an approximation of this in his book Applications.
Not sure if I'm using the calculator wrong. I for example put in ''33% flop, 75% turn, and 100% river bets''. And I get told I need 93% value and 7% bluffs on the flop, 80/20 turn and 50/50 river. Am I doing something wrong, or do I just not understand how the calculator works. How could I go from 7% bluffs on the flop to having 20% on turn, and then about 50% on the river.
Solvers always use total amount in the middle including after hero puts in call to work out odds, i still struggle with this concept, yes you win all of it if you do call but thats only if you risk it with the call with your getting answer D with 18/ 42 vs 18/60. Makes being a POW much more enticing lol.
Indifference or equal EVs are only true for the specific frequencies shown. If you change the frequencies that will change the EV of each combo and you will see that indifference does not necessarily hold true
This is only true if the opponent adjusts to your new frequencies (In which case, you reach a new set of indifference points). If the opposing strategy remains the same, then you are still indifferent, regardless of your own frequencies. I cover this in detail in this article: blog.gtowizard.com/does-your-range-affect-your-strategy/
@@GTOWizard I disagree in part. I agree with part of what you wrote in your article, namely that if you are facing a fixed strategy you can simply maximise the EV of each hand in your range vs this strategy - without concerning yourself with your range as a whole. This should be fairly obvious. However, few if any humans are playing a fixed strategy - and neither is the solver. The solver outputs a fixed strategy vs X fixed strategy, but if you change the input X fixed strategy, the solver will output a different fixed strategy. In this sense, the solver is adjusting. The EV of your range and the EV of each action each combo can take is calculated according to the frequencies shown. Therefore, if you change the frequencies you will change the EV of each action each combo can take, as well as the EV of the overall range. Change any input (whether your range, your actions, your frequencies, or your opponent’s range, actions, or frequencies) and you will change the output.
Very confused and bad constructed questions about how many bluffs should villain has to have IN ORDER TO BE BALANCED wich is different to how many bluffs villain should have IN ORDER TO MAKE A BREAK EVEN CALL. Those aren't same quiestions and thus meake confuse answers from the aprentices. Those are different lines and trees solutions. You can't have more bluffs than values in order to be balanced BUT you absolutely could have more bluffs to 1)deny equity 2)put some pressure on static bluff catchers and 3) exploit opponents,
A balanced bluffing range makes your opponent indifferent to calling. They are the same number of bluffs. The fact that you can bluff more often than value bet is a phenomenon of multistreet games.
pls help with math for villain turn bluffs.. say, turn bluffs = x villain chucks 1/3x and continues bluffing 2/3x + value betting 20 nuts.. since river bet is pot sized, river bluffs are 1/3 of river betting range therefore, 2/3x = 1/3 * (2/3x + 20) solving for x.. 2x - 2/3x = 20 4/3x =20 x = 15 so, turn Value to bluffs = 20 to 15.. you mentioned answer D, that is 20 to 25.. what am i missing?
The math is explained here: 18:37 To calculate the number of turn bluffs for a game where you bet pot on turn and river, you'd solve for 'b' like so: 20/(20+b) = (2/3)(2/3)
Why do we start with 8 nuts in a multi street polar game when there are only 6 combinations of aces. And how do we get 37 combos, if aces and queens only 12 ?
That example is no longer about Aces and Queens, it's just plugging in an arbitrary amount of nuts and bluffs to show you how to calculate this in general.
Why does our give up % represent a percentage of our total range rather than a % of our bluffs if we’re never giving up value in this example? A bit confused why the give ups aren’t based on our bluff combos
It's just to make the math easier. The defender recoups their turn call when the aggressor gives up the river. Therefore, turn pot odds = river give up%. You could use a more complex formula to rescale it in terms of bluff-giveup%, but it's not as clean.
I’m not sure if you guys will comment after four months lol. But I’m confused with the idea in multi street polar game. Why the bet to give up ratio on the river should be equal to the pot odds on the turn?
I'm curious how multi-street leverage relates to "block" sized betting, particularly "pot control" sized bets when OOP. Especially when I've opened PF, I'd rather make a small bet with a weak and/or backdoor hand than to face a larger size bet from behind. A player who just calls a 25% pot bet may bet ~50%, or more, when or just because it's checked to them, but not raise the 25%.
It's difficult to define "value" and "bluffs" for merged ranges. Something like a quarter-pot rangebet on the flop contains many hand classes between value hands and bluffs, so the situation doesn't match up with this simple polar toy game model well. We'd need a more sophisticated toy game!
Isn't the pot odds calculated incorrectly at the 6:03, as the villain's $18 to be called, is included in the pot. So it should be 18/42 instead of 18/60?
@@GTOWizard Yes, if you discard the pot odds as a ratio, and simply jump to the break even equity percentage needed, not per see "odds" but fair enough. The answer % in the video was correct anyhow
