The March issue of the 2+2 Magazine has an article by David Sklansky looking at a rare situation when it's correct to bet the river against a single opponent when (1) the bet doesn't have a chance to get called by a worse hand or (2) get a better hand to fold.

You can read the full article here: Bluffing to Stop a Bluff

There is an example in TMOP that illustrates this. In the Example 15.2 AKQ game where each player is allowed to bet or raise 1 or 2 units into a 4 unit pot, optimal strategy has Player X betting 1 unit sometimes with a K, which can't get called by worse or fold out better, but only reduces the amount he loses because if he checks he'll face a bigger bet that he'll sometimes have to call.

I think this is roughly the same principle behind blocking bets although we usually consider those to at least have some chance of getting either a value or a fold.

Yeah, a pre-emptive bet is the blocking bet concept taken to its logical endpoint, when the equity when called is 0%.

From the article:
Well this is quite an artificial assumption. Of course it makes sense to bet small to see a showdown if it's magically mean we won't get raised by a bluff.
That's a problem with a lot toy games out there. Once our bets of various sizes restrict opponents options then there might be all kind of implications but this is not really poker anymore.

Yeah, this is much better example becasue in this game we bet a king to put it in range with better hands (to hide it, so to speak) not to enforce some arbitrary wish like "he won't bluff raise us just becasuse we bet small".

I respect Sklansky a lot, but sometimes he is just wrong.

He published something about it being correct to not bet what is likely the best hand in limit hold em until the turn if your opponent would not be making a mistake to call on the flop and would also be getting the right odds to call the turn if you bet and got calked on the flop. Lol. Hes only human. His rationale was "if villain's not making a mistake we aren't making money". Of course, the reality is that WE would be making a FTOP mistake to NOT bet when we are ahead and villain is drawing live.

he also wrote that medium pairs have gone up in value now because games are more aggressive so its no longer necessary to automatically fold them to a flop bet with an over card. Again, lol. Wouldn't they be more valuable if players checked those flops when they missed making it hard to make mistakes? I don't know what to say about that. The entire train of thought feels very off to me.

I am going to read this article but im gonna guess theres some sort of fuzzy logic at play suggesting to make a bet that can only lose money. If im wrong, I guess I will have had a serious "light bulb moment". It seems to be strictly false to me at this time.

Hmm, at first I thought Slansky had written the most useless and uninteresting thing I ever heard related to poker.

Then I realised that it actually does prove wrong commonly accepted logic;

'We bluff to fold a better hand, we bet value to get a call from a stronger hand'.. Is not accurate. Instead it should read.. 'We bet to make more money from a worse hand (almost always by making it call), or to make more money from better hand (almost always by making it fold)'.... So we bet to make money eh...

To be honest, I think I we should all just pretend this conversation never happened... That means you Slansky.

Sometimes betting is simply the play that realizes the most equity. In a way, you're "gaining" by taking a line that loses less.

Sometimes... Like, once in a million hands for the sake of about 5bbs.

Just reading that article blatantly makes people stupider lol... Like teaching fashion students about mumps. Or like teaching a farm boy that sheep could learn to dig..

I get the feeling Slansky has turned into a GTO heavy player? these guys are often become too interested in detail.. Does anyone know at what level exploitative player he thinks he is? Perhaps he's just so amazing at all things poker related that a 5bbs extra over a million hands is fascinating to him?? I reckon the man blatantly needs to learn level 4.

I think on the river its pretty rare that a bet like this is correct, but there are flop and turn analogues to this concept. For example, say you raise the button with Ac6c the BB calls and the flop comes Qd7s2s. When the BB checks, that's a spot where a lot of players would c-bet a hand with significant showdown value even though its drawing to 3-6 crappy outs when called. They do so because to check would cause them to have to fold a high equity hand on most turns to BB's betting range. In effect, BU bets to end the pot and pre-empt a turn bluff, because it realizes a greater percentage of the pot than if he played his hand for showdown value.

I'm sure you could apply the logic preflop too, I'm sure there is a little of this overhang in his range for almost any bet. It's just that as we move backwards in the hand there are many complicated factors to consider, like protection, which makes all this stuff much less important.

I think I was being a bit rude earlier. I suppose it is quite interesting if nothing else.

You're right of course, but Sklansky is just assuming that that's true. Unless he frequently makes a preemptive bet, gets raised and then calls and sees the nuts, he doesn't know whether his preemptive bets are eliminating bluffs.

I'm pretty sure I recall Applications of No Limit Holdem addressing this as well.

You seem to be the only person in the world to define certain thoughts with the terms "level __" where "___" is filled in with a number; and your definitions are difficult to follow (plus most people haven't read your attempts to explain the definitions at all); so that alone would make it difficult for anyone to answer this question about what "level player" David Sklansky is.

It's not my definition. The concept can be found anywhere... The practicalities are what ur probably struggling to get your head around. This is what I've described... Look up my threads 'yadis perfect thought process' if anyone wants to know more.

... What I meant was. David Sklansky probably cannot recognise the full importance of the villains perceived range, the villains second range, once the villain becomes aware of the range we had given him first.. I'm wondering whether he recognises the full importance of his own perceived range but then I presume he must. I know of many players who do...

People are familiar with the term levels but what Lego is saying is that you appear to be the only person to define players by what 'level' you think they understand.

Hands that can usually only beat a bluff go up in value when players bluff more frequently, provided you know when you should attempt to bluff-catch.

Sound, but I'm not that either.. Anybody who has reached level 3 will have a moment of realisation where they recognise the true importance of their perceived range. This moment is is literally a game changer. Anybody who has experienced it will agree with me I'm sure. It's more than that though, it makes perfect sense in many ways.

The reason most GTO players don't see the levels as they are, is because GTO players are generally looking for exact solutions to 'Individual situations'. While I'm talking about our level of understanding of poker 'As a whole', which GTO players find very complicated to consider... A GTO player might learn the level 3 aspects to one situation. While a level 3 player understands how the perceived range comes into the poker calculation as a whole, therefore, when he is presented with any situation he can simply calculate the factors which apply to level 3.

... So Lego says that he gets the concept of the levels, but he can't see them definitively clearly for himself. Infact, no one in his poker circle can see them clearly either. There are no guides where people describe them clearly either... Then, instead of learning my guides, and advancing his understanding of the levels, he instead tells me that i should follow his understanding of those levels. Lol it's ridiculous n is all really funny if you think about it. It's like a fashion designer pointing out a sheep to a farmboy and saying. 'Everyone calls these jumpers. What kind of a fool are you thinking they're sheep!'... Here you can see the true power of the GTO mental block. It creates these little mind twisting riddles for us just so that it can protect itself. The power of Game Theory, and backwards knowledge, on the human condition, really is amazing!

I did not say anything of the kind. And I'm certainly aware of the importance of considering one's perceived range and I am able to consider my perceived range while playing a hand.


Whether you call it a sheep or a jumper, it is still the same thing. Calling it a jumper would make communication more difficult than necessary though since everyone else calls it a sheep.

Your definition of "level" is markedly different to just about everyone else's, so your posts generally just cloud and confuse whichever issue is being discussed.

Block-betting the river has virtually nothing to do with (skill) levels or perceived ranges, so I have no idea why you introduced your confused ideas to the thread.

The concept is pretty easy to understand and its an interresting topic. So dunno what some of you a brabbeling about. And ofc Sklansky did/said things that were/are wrong...

I find it hard thinking of spots where its applicable and I (as a multitabler) dont think Ill ever even recognise a spot while playing, as it seems hard to figure out. Its kinda like medium risk-small reward or feels like it at least.

I have trouble with complicated theoretical models that are only constructed to prove a specific argument right or wrong. There are simply too many conditions that have to be true to make this valid advice.

Given that, I assume David got his math right. Otherwise, I am not so sure. In fact I don't even know if my opponent knows exactly what he is doing.

Whenever I read stuff like that, it reminds me of the following conversation:
A: Did you know that 124125 divided by 3 is my telephone number?
B: Wow, I was not aware of that!

You are an above average forum troll, sir. Your dedication is what sets you apart imho.

Well I was saying that he seems a GTO heavy player. If he understood the levels properly than he wouldn't be a GTO heavy player... None of u three understand the levels properly so u'l have no idea what I'm talking about.

This is way off topic and you guys took it there. I have set up 2 threads which explain exactly what I'm on about and gives you a chance to challenge my logic. Both of you posted on those threads and can't touch my logic and havnt made any attempt to understand my explainations using the technique I described...

So instead, now ur resorting to the old, 'let's gang up and all say its nonsense'. Nice moves gents.