Im kinda confused with this line in mathew janda's book , do we call enough to make all villain's bluffs indifferent OR do we call enough to prevent an atc attack? if we knew that villain always bluffs with theoritically correct hands and never with atc , how much would we have to reduce our defending frequency?

We call at frequency to prevent villain profiting by betting any two card. Like if he cbet half pot, we got to continue atleast 67% of the total combo we called him on previous street. Not sure what u mean by " bluff with theoritically correct hand" ?

Can you at least put the line in quotes or something? I mean, I would put the line in quotes and italicize all of the quote if I was making this post. Make it easy for people when you are asking for something.

And if you are asking about something from the book, then how about a page number? I own the book. I don't know what you are asking about and if I can find the book, I don't where to flip to.

Ok page 139 quote: *On board textures where our opponent should not be able to profitably bet any two cards, we usually need to defend against a flop bet around 60 to 70 percent of the time. This will still give him an incentive to bluff with the right types of hands*


He says it on other pages too , here is an example:

100bb stacks 6max game MP raise 3bb Co calls

Flop is: Q-8-2 rainbow

Our opponent should not be able to bet 100% of his range here , there are some hands in his range who are theoritically correct to bluff with but there are other no equity hands who must check/fold here. When we construct our defend range here , we take into account that our opponent will bet ALL his low-no equity hands , we defend so much to prevent him from doing that but would happen if we knew he doesnt do that? what if we knew he check/fold his bottom no-equity hands? would we defend less than 60-70%?

We don't expect villain to bet 100% of his range on too many flops. We just need them to bet enough worse hands to call their bet based on the opponent's betsiszing.

JTs, J9s, and T9s almost caught up to Ace high and QJs, QTs, and Q9s improved as well. The coldcaller likes this board and will continue a lot on the flop against 1/2 pot - pot sized bets. Naturally because of this, the out of position player must bluff with hands that have some equity against a call or raise. Otherwise, the out of position player will be making -ev bluffs on the flop because of the in position players relatively low folding frequency.

On the other hand, a flop like:

A72r

The out of position player can get his opponent to fold more often on this board. Against some players, I'll bet any no pair no draw hand as well as my strong hands. I think giving up with the lowest equity hands such as QJs without a backdoor flushdraw is fine though as the difference in ev between bluffing and check folding is likely a small difference.

Please use quote marks or the QUOTE tag. It's not entirely clear which bits Janda said.

He says a strange thing about minimum defence frequency , if our opponent called our bet and we check next street , we dont have to defend against villain's bets so much because villain risked some of his money to get this opportunity and will not always do that. Then he goes on and say that if we bet the turn instead and face a raise , we should use minimum defence frequency because otherwise villain will always raise us.


I can hardly make any sense out of it , if villain knows that we dont defend as much on the turn when he float us , he can simply do that all the time and also when villain raise our bet , he risk a lot of his money to get this opportunity and its unrealistic to say , he will always raise us but he will not always float us.


It makes no sense at all.

Think about it this way:

If you fold the turn 2% more than mdf, does your opponent have a profitable float on the flop? I think the answer is clearly no he does not have a profitable float on the flop because he's only winning back a fraction of the cost of the flop float.