Hello everybody.

My question consists of to parts. The first is whether or not i'm right in my value/bluff ratio calculations and the second is which hands i have to use for my 3b bluffing range. The game is HU Sngs 75bbs deep.

Let's start with the first one: if our our opponent raises 2x and our 3b sizing is 6x we're investing 6bbs to win 8bbs. 6/8=0,75*100=75%. So if our 3b works 75 % of the time or more we'll have an immediate profit. The GTO response for our opponent will then be to defend/4b 25 % of the time. Our GTO 5bet value shoving range then has to be top 25 % of our 3betting range.

Let's say we're 5b shoving AKo+ and QQ+ (2,56% of all hands) then we need to have 2,56*3=7,68% of bluffs in our 3betting range. Is that correctly understood?

Question nr. 2:
I've chosen the following hands to be the 7,68 % of hands:

22, 33, 43s, 45s, 56s, 67s, 78s, 46s, 75s, 86s, 97s, 96s, KQs, KQo, AQo, AQs, A2s-A5s

I'm in doubt whether or not to include hands like KQ and AQ since they are pretty strong to raise/fold but at the same time they're dominating our opponents 3b-calling range a ton and are not playing very well against our opponents 4betting range (at least not in HU sngs). What's your thought on that? and the whole range in general?

I'm pretty new to GTO. Haven't read a lot on the topic. Most of it comes from my own thought process, so if I have some flaws in my thinking I would appreciate you telling me

thank you

Both of these statements are wrong.

Your assumption is wrong. If your 3bet is 6bb your opponent will call you like 80% of the time and you can't have bluffs in ur range. That would suck.

You need to first play GTO urself.

Can't see GTO min raises as 3bet, way too exploitable and makes no sense.

Your range depends on ur bet size, so you have to start over.

What i said is incorrect.

I think you can have different raise sizes and then adjust your range to be optimal. But also GTO would mean that you chose the range/bet size option that yields the most.

So you should bet pot in the first place, which means 9bb.

Then you 3bet 55+, A9+, A3s+, K9s+, 65s-9ts, KQ.

call: A2+,K7+, 8T+, 87 and all suited cards except (2-6 to 2-9 and 3-7 to 3-9)

In addition you need to 3bet all kinds of cards in your calling range sometimes but that is too complicated to put here.

GTO is too complicated to learn for human. You can only come close.

this all assumes 3bb raise and 70bb stacks effective no antes.

Thanks for the response. I obviously used the term GTO in a wrong way. My whole intention by making this range, was to make a balanced 3b range against regs on my level. I wanted it to include the right amount of valueraises/bluffs to make our opponent indifferent to bluffing.

Have I done that right? or is it still flawed?

GTO just means a strategy that cannot be exploited.

Your range must be balanced to be unexploitable, so that is correct. But if you raise min your very exploitable because ur giving ur opponent too good of a price.


In HU most player play very exploitable but I would not recommend that.

5b shoving range is too tight, AQ+ 99+ is more realistic

Why? Can you prove that minraising is dominated by bigger raise-sizes? And how about min-raising only a fraction of our 3betting range?
IMO only shoving denies villain the right odds, unless he has AA/KK, then shoving dominates a 9bb 3bet?

Im not min 3betting? our opponent 2x and we 6x. So lets blinds are 10/20 and he makes it 40, then we're making it 120.

If we choose that value range we have to add some more bluff combos to our range to keep having a 25/75 ratio, right?

Yes and no, the thing is at the lower levels unless your playing only really tough regs you don't really need to balance your 5b range since fish really aren't going to be 4bing lite. I actually have made charts for HU and once you get to 4/5b ranges playing exploitatively is a better way to go. What stakes do you play?

If this is your goal, you have to continue with at least x% of your range, not exactly x%*. That's part of why the answer to your question is 'no'.


*(1) Important caveat: this is true provided that villain's bluffs have (or realize) zero equity when you continue, and have no alternative +EV decisions.

(2) x isn't 25! Your 3-bet risks 5bb to win 3bb. Villain needs to defend 37.5% to prevent a zero-equity hand from auto-profiting. (Your math in the OP is wrong.) Cf. '(1)' on the existence of these "zero-equity hands."

(3) I'm not sure which stakes you play, but half-decent opponents don't 4-bet pot at these stack sizes. Depending on the specific sizing, you'll have to defend ~40% or so against it--once again, not 25%.

When you min raise you allow villain to play a wider range profitable against you. So bluffs don't work and you get no value either...

Sorry thought that was a 2x raise to 3bb. Need to learn how to read.

Your issue is considering preflop in a vacuum. To calculate gto ranges, you would have to calculate the entirety of the game tree below this particular decision. In nlhe it is just too complex to do. But in your math if you fold just enough to make him indifferent to bluffing if the hand ended there, then that makes villain's 3-bets insanely profitable when he makes +ev decisions postflop. Maybe he just flops the nuts and it's easy, maybe he finds spots to bluff you, etc. The point is if you really want him to be indifferent to bluffing you, you need to defend far more than the math you've used says.