If I bet bottom pair it will be added in my bluffing range and not my value range of course. Surely you understand and agree on that? A bottom pair have five outs in a good case scenario, a weak gutshot has 4 outs. They are both bluffs.

You are just being silly now.

So let us take bluffing with bottom pair for instance. I have shown you that it is much better to do so when being in position than when being out of position. This means that I often can add those combos in my bluffing range when being in position but not when being out of position.

Please tell me what combos that are better to bet when being out of position compared to being in position? Bluff combos that can even out the in position and out of position bluffing ratio since the out of pos range is already behind because of the third pair bluffs.

Then I have not even discussed the weak gutshots, the low flushdraws you check back on turn because if you would bet all draws on certain turns your betting range would get too bluffheavy, and so on. Or those times when you check back on turn just because the boardtexture smashes oppont´s range and you have to little of a fold equity to bluff. Or those times when you have a draw and the board pairs up on turn and you do not want to bet your draw on a paired board. If you do not want to bet your draw, you probably do not want to check call it either. But if you are in position you will check back and have a chance to realize your equity much more often.

How about when I bet 66 on a A Q 4 flop? If you have AQ and let me see a river when I bet flop, I will have a set about 9 percentages of times.

Had I bet it when being out of pos on flop I would have been check folding every missed turn vs your bet.

Now... I am not claiming you should always bet 66 as a bluff on every flop when being in position. You should bluff with it on more flops than if you had been out of position though.

Then what's your bluffing range in that spot?

It of course depends on the turn card. Mostly backdoordraws and some gutshots maybe.

If board is very dry on turn, I would rather bluff bet third, fourth pair as a bluff than a low pp. On every turn that hits after a rainbow flop there will be backdoor draws out there though.

I want to bet turn with about 50/50 value/bluff ratio and if my range is too strong I will have to check-call more often.

So, can you also please answer questions now then?

What hands are good to bluff when being out of position but not when being in position? I have now shown you examples and explained alot. I don not think I can add more than this. I would appreciate if you could give some examples that shows me that we will not realize more equity of our bluffs when being in position.

I am a beginner at game theory and appreciate everytime when I get corrected and can fix a flaw in my thinking. I just which you could give me some examples though. As of right now you have not shown me that these ratios are wrong.

This is your problem.

The selection of bluffs should satisfy some conditions:

1) make better hands fold

2) maximize equity when called

3) have an expected value higher than checking

Yes? And I chose to do so with bluffs that has more equity than 2 outs when being out of position on turn. I do not understand your point here. What is my problem?

You have to me more clear about what your point is please.

I will give you an example:

When I bet flop I want to do it with a polarized range. My bluffcombos should retain their equity vs opponents calling range. I therefore chose to bet flop with flop-draws, BD draws, gutshots, overcards, third pairs for instance.

When turn comes I aim to remove half of my flop bluffs at the same time as I keep all my value combos. This means that the ratio will be 50/50. I then chose good draws and bet them together with about the same amount of value combos and check rest.

If board do not have alot of BD draws on turn, and if I need more bluff combos in my range then I will bet overcards for instance. There will almost always be gutshots with overcards, BD straightdraws, BD fludhdraws, flushdraws from flop, gutshots from flop, straightdraws from flop etc to bet on turn.

Not often will board be so dry that I can not even bet overcards as a bluff. If I bet AJo, and Aqo as a bluff on turn I have 32 combos right there. I will not have difficulties to balance my turn range after bettin flop because my range will not include all sets from flop for instance. On a dry board I will probably only bet middle set for instance. That is three combos. Then let us say that I have two overpairs that I do not want to check then I have 6 more combos, maybe I want to bet TPTK, that´s 16 more combos. As you can see, not even now have we reached valuebets enough to cover only two hands of overcards. Of course we will have more valuebets than that sometimes. But we will also very often have many more bluffs to bet too. Please note that this example was just to give you an idea of what my point is. Of course the runouts will change ranges completely very often and my valuehands from flop has become bluffcatchers on turn etc. The point is though, that I got the impression that you thought that I would have problem to find enough bluffcombos if I did not barrel low PP:s from oop. This is not true if you bet flop in a balanced way.

You can not have it both ways, a dry board with a very few bluffs but at the same time always with a range with too many value combos. If that would be the case I often would have made a mistake on flop by betting too many valuehands to start with. On dry flops I can only bet as many valuehands as my bluffs allow me to, and vice verce. This means that I will bet less often on some dry flops than wet flops and so on.

I believe you think I will have a problem on certain very dry boards because you think I bet flop with more value combos than I do. I believe that many players value bet flop too often. Which means that their turn range gets messed up and their flop checking range gets too weak.

There is no goal of a number of value bets that you're trying to reach. The idea should be to maximize value with your good hands and then select bluffs that meet the qualifications.

You're selecting your bluffs before you select your value hands. This is wrong because you're either missing value or value betting too thin by accident.

Determine a value range first, and then you determine the bluffing range, not the other way around.

If you don't have enough bluffs in your range to bluff at the optimal frequency, then you should either bet 100%, or make your sizing bigger, which will cause some value hands to become bluffcatchers, which will bring your bluffing frequency up to the indifference point.

Imho some of the flaws I see in your arguments:

1. Your opening range in position and out of position are equivalent (they should not be). This seems evident when you keep posting your examples and just swap positions and say 'see doesn't work out of position'.

2. Your bluff/valuebet ratio is related to pot size, spr, the size of your range on this street, and the size of your range on future streets

3. I think your conflating the number of absolute combinations of bluffs with the frequency with which you bluff. In general your overall range will be wider in position so you will be able to value bet thinner and bluff more as a result of a wider value betting range.

Edit: Fixed some spelling errors. I will concede that in position you may be better able to utilize the information from your opponents actions but that works for value bets and bluffs.

Sent from my SCH-R760 using 2+2 Forums

You are just focusing on the wrong stuff and ignore the important and relevant questions.

What I described to you was just an example. On some boards I count bluffcombos first on other boards I count value combos first. What ever makes it easiest for me to create balanced ranges. You can not take everything like it is written in stone, I am just trying to give you examples. There is however no way of ignoring the facts though, if you want to have a balanced range you must adjust your valuecombos to the right ratio of bluff combos or vice verca. That should be your goal not to do everything to "maximize value with our valuehands", if it means that our range will get unbalanced.

Sure you can manipulate the pot odds to help you create your ranges. But you probably know that it is not like betting bigger or smaller makes an enormous big difference for what ratio you can use.

I do not agree that you always should bet with a 100 percent frequency if you have too strong of a range. Then opponent of course only have to fold all bluffcatchers. If you bluff to often I can exploit you by calling with all my bluffcatchers, if you bluff to seldom I exploit you by folding all my bluffcatchers.

You are also wrong about us betting bigger when our range is too strong. We should do the opposite, bet smaller. You want to give your opponent a bigger reason to widen his calling range and you do so by giving him better odds to call.

This is wrong. You should always count your value combos first.

The goal should be to play every hand to maximize your expectation with that hand. Forget the word balance.

If you're checking hands that are more +ev to bet than check, then you're missing value, plain and simple.

You forgot all the value we gain from the opponent's good hands and draws.

1) When discussing this we of course have to use same ranges for the two positions othervice it is impossibe to come to a conclusion.

2) Again, since we want to figure out the correct answer we have been using a standard 100 BB size for both players. Of course stack to pot ratio affects your ratios.

Please expand on what you mean when you say that it is the size of the ranges that decide your bluffing/value ratios?

3) What do you mean when you say that you will be able to bluff more combos when having a wider range? Do you mean that the ratio value/bluffs changes because of how wide your range is and that you can bluff more combos compared to valuebets when your range is wider?

It is not like all your hands beat the top of my range just because your range is unbalanced and too strong. If I call that wide vs an unbalanced too strong of a range I of course make a mistake. It is impossible for you to have such a strong 100 percent range that it would be plus EV vs only my value range.

If your range is unbalanced and too strong, then I of course do not call with draws if I do not have the implied odds to do so.

It is not complicated really. If you face an unbalanced range you just fold all bluffcatcers or call with all bluffcatchers. That is just basic game theory.

If you bet your hole range when it is too strong and valueheavy you lose EV because I will fold everything but the top of my range.

By checking your weaken up your betting range and therefore you will widening my calling range and your bets will be more plus EV.

Let me give you an example. If you have an UG range that is very narrow, like JJ plus and AQs, AKo and you check 100 percent of flops to me, do you think I bet without a very good hand? No I will not, because your range is too strong. If you bet flop with a polarized range though, then I will play more hands. This is one of the reasons (probably the biggest one) of why you are betting the flop. To make your range weaker so that you can make money on your good hands.

If you open from UG with only AA and we have only 100 BB stacks, then you will not get any value from me because I will fold everything. For every hand that you add in your UG opening range the more your AA will go up in value. This is why we are opening with other hands then the premiums, to be able to get value from our premiums.

This is why you should have a checking range when your range is too strong, because you want to make your betting range weaker so that you can get value from your good hands, othervice I just fold everything but the top of my range.

Are you saying that 100% flop cbet is never a part of the optimal solution of any game?

Seems logical since our value hands will all want to bet different streets for different sizing to maximize their value, and our bluffs are usually around 0 EV?

Our threshold bluffs will be ~0ev, but all bluffs should be greater than or equal to zero. The stronger bluffs will make quite a bit compared with the threshold bluffs. Thus, the bluffing range as a whole will be +ev.

What? How is this practical? You can discuss a bluffing frequency for different ranges for different positions. Even huhu play your range will vary based upon your position on current and future rounds of betting. I guess what is the point of asking the question if it cannot be used in practical applications?

I don't think I saw this in the OP and I'm sorry if it's assumed from the FAQ or sticky. It's such an important part of the equation that it should mot be omitted.

I was actually implying that the ratio of valuebets/bluffs is independent of the size of your range, it's just that the absolute number of combos you have in your valuebet range will be more in position (given your range is wider) and thus the absolute combos of bluffs will be higher for balance as a result.

This does not change the ratio assuming your bet size as compared to pot size is similar in position or out of position.

Your valuebet range will be wider mostly because your range will be wider so you will have value bets in your button range on flops that you normally wouldn't have in your UTG range.

For example you raise preflop on the button and get a caller in the bb (I'm ignoring the number of players in the game for simplicities sake).

Flop comes T72 r. BB checks to you. Ignoring a balanced range for a moment, you could potentially have all over pairs, all sets, T7s, all T's, 99-88 as a potential value range.

Compare that to if your UTG. You just absolutely can't have that many combinations of value hands including all of the sets because you would never raise 22 and 77 UTG. You certainly have fewer Tx hands in your range. Your range on previous streets affects the number of value hands you can have on future streets. Thus a wider range in position means you have a wider value range and to balance a wider bluffing range. This does not mean the ratio from value to bluffs change just the absolute number of combinations.

Sent from my SCH-R760 using 2+2 Forums

That was a wide question and I have not thought about it. What I claim though, is that an unbalanced betting range when playing NL poker is never GTO and that you have to fix that by either checking some value hands and make your betting range weaker or use a betsize that makes it GTO. This you can do by betting smaller in some cases (when your range is too valueheavy) or bigger in other cases (when your range is to bluffheavy)

If you have a an unbalanced too strong of a range and bet turn even bigger than normal sized bet, like you suggested, then you do not play even close to optimal. Your only chance of betting turn with 100 percent of your range in this case is if it is possible to bet small enough to make me widen my calling range enough much.

I believe though, that it must be more optimal to split your range up in different ranges and use different betsizes for every range, together with having a checking range.

I agree with Bob. Ranges should be contructed starting with a value range.

Sent from my SCH-R760 using 2+2 Forums

You have missunderstood. What we are discussing is the ratio value/bluffs. I claim that the ratio changes depending on position and that we can have a slighter higher ratio of bluffs when being in position than when being out of position.

Of topic but anyways: I also claim that we can C bet flop less often the wider our range is. Do you not agree? I do not know if I missunderstood you (because I suck at English) but it seems like you think that we can value bet more often when we have a wider range because we hit more cards on the flop. I may have mistaken me though?

Why? Why does it matter if you start with bluff combos (which can be best to do on very wet flops) or if you start with the value combos?

The only thing that matters is that we will get the correct ratio of values and bluffs so that our range is balanced.

If you do not agree, please explain why.

Of course you want to maximize your valuehands value but you can not do that if your ranges are unbalanced. If your range is too valueheavy I just fold all of my bluffcatchers.

Since our goal should be to have a balanced range then it does not matter if we create our betting range by counting value combos first or bluff combos first, the end result will be the same.

It is not like we can bet a higher ratio of value to bluffs just because we count the valuecombos first. I have no idea of what you guys or I am missing here?

You're missing value.