"if idk what proper nash equilibrium ranges look like here should i even be applying MDF"

No.

Lol answer i was looking for basically *facepalm* sorry guys

because when you call with middle hands, they suck out with 2-4 outs all the time.

Let's assume that we knowingly exploit a loose passive opponent on the turn by value betting thin and eliminating bluffs from our betting range on the turn. Then what happens when we check the turn? We're junk heavy and we don't have any strong hands at the top of our range. Thus if we blindly adhere to minimum defense frequency, we will end up making -ev calls on the river.

----

Let's assume that we knowingly exploit an overaggressive opponent by checking back more strong hands on the turn in the hopes that he overbets the river too frequently. Then if we adhere to minimum defense frequency on the river, we will end up folding hands that would be +ev calls.

"bluffs. Maybe villain has a hand like 66 and decides to turn it into a bluff and you bluff catch with 22.. OOPS! nothing worse than correctly determining your opponent is bluffing and then making a losing call against him. That's the worst."

I disagree. If your opponent is bluffing too much and you wish to exploit that tendency by calling down more often, you should lose to some of his bluffs.

I could be wrong on this and I'm sure it's not explicitly said in some of the texts that we pull concepts like MDF out of but it is my understanding, or at least intuition that;
MDF doesn't take range advantage into account. I think the only time MDF based on pot odds and the indifference principal are strictly correct are in spots where whatever decision point you are on is pretty neutral in terms of range advantage.
In other words, there will be (i think) spots where one players range is just so much stronger than the other players range that there is no way to make the player with the range advantage indifferent to bluffing or not. In fact I believe there are some spots where both players are playing a perfect strategy but, because of the last card to peel on the board, one player can bet his entire range and the other can do nothing to stop it.

For instance;
say we have a player opening UTG for 3xbb (100bb deep) in a full ring cash game and the player in the bb calls.
HU to the flop of;
KdJcTs
If PFR has all the sets as well as the nut straight and the PFC has maybe some 2 pair combos and discounted JJ and TT (because he may 3 bet the pre-flop)
What can PFC really do to stop PFR from betting his entire range or at least betting a very wide and polarized range and going bet bet jam with his air and draws? Can a MDF really be used here?

I think the MDF is a good rule of thumb for cases where it's unclear that one player has a massive advantage and it is good to think about as it teaches us something about what GTO player would "look like". But I don't think (stress the word THINK) it should be taken too seriously.


please someone correct me if Im wrong

agreed

Thanks bob such a simple post but so good. :>

---

Yeah so what you are talking about is some blunders i'm having trouble with currently though not as extreme as you mentioned in your examples.

Basically also not knowing what the GTO/nash equil ranges should be in a certain spot as well. but i guess with more off-table work and practice i should get a better understanding...

---

It's still sort of hard to describe what else i'm having trouble with...

Sometimes i'll try and exploit villain like you mentioned in the 1st example. But then i'll run into a situation where i'm not sure if villain is going to be over-bluffing or trying to exploit me... therefore my instincts take ova and tell me i should adhere to MDF/GTO even tho how my ranges are constructed in this spot are pretty terrible so i end up making some funky decisions like you describe (tho not as extreme).

Also really good post as well donovan :>, you mention an interesting point/query in regards to range advantages and MDF i would also like to know as well (there's def another thread called defending x% of our range that addresses more on this i think).

The example you posted is a pretty simple way of understanding it, but range advantages can occur not only OTF but OTT & OTR given x, y, and z run outs.

---

I also have another question in regards to MDF/confirming some information regarding when MDF should be applied...

Ex:
Assume you don't know villain's range/how he is deviating & the board/run outs are such that no one has a massive range advantage as mentioned above in the posts.

So based on what ik MDF is best applied when in a nuts/polar spot where villain fires 3 barrels on xxx board y turn and z river (yeah if he's 3-barreling a balanced range).
We do not know how villain's range is constructed and whether or not he is over-bluffing/under-bluffing (given y turn and z river) therefore we cannot make the highest EV decision to call or fold our bluff-catcher. Blockers matter here and would be close to the top of our range when defending.

I think adhering to MDF in this scenario would be the most reasonable?

You don't always bluff catch with the top of your range, you bluff catch with hands that have the best blockers to your opponent's value betting range.

because everyone is a bluffing/folding station nowadays

That is the top of your range, and yes.

If that's the case then you probably shouldn't be attempting to exploit on the early streets in the first place. This problem is part of the reason why it's important to exploit on the margins.

If you don't know your opponent's range then how could you possibly know that neither player has an advantage?

In this case I think the best approach is to try to estimate what a good strategy would be for your opponent and construct a good counter strategy there. I find it helpful to think of where my ev is coming from. With strong hands, my ev is coming from both the money in the pot and from my opponent's stack. With bluffcatchers, which are the prime hands in question here, my ev is coming from just the money in the pot. If my opponent is really good then it doesn't matter what I do with my bluffcatchers in this specific instance. However, it may matter in future hands how I handle my bluffcatchers this time.

I couldn't even get through the first page.
Please stop using the terms "Game Theory" and "GTO" (or even Nash equilibrium for that matter) unless you actually know anything about them.

The concepts that WE have used to close/complete (only idiots say "solve" it's not a F'ing equation or proof) are so beyond above average comprehension that a very, very small percentage of people alive today are capable of (1) understanding it and then (2) applying it to a game such as poker.

There have been a few people (that you can likely count on one hand) with no background/training/education in math, statistics, economics that can master (honestly, even have a basic understanding/respect of/for) TRUE Game Theory or Game Theory Optimization. So, if you're in that category, you should be posing more questions and making less declarative statements.

It is honestly the funniest thing in the world that 11 years ago the "average" player in the US had a 4-year college degree or better (and would usually have had at least one substantive course in this area) and now, for some time, it has been en vogue to leave school no later than 3rd semester simply because you're beating a game for money (regardless of stakes/money earned).

So whether you're one of these "successful" college dropouts or someone who found the game later in their life, whatever you thought you found online that "taught" you these concepts was wrong. Let me clarify - not all poker info/knowledge/strategy is invalid. You can certainly improve your game from all sources - reading books (even as old as Super System), 1-on-1 coaching, "Coach" website memberships, some forums and groups (although beyond 2+2 it is pretty dicey, at best), other players (of all levels), analysis (preferably with non-partisan 3rd party), practice (maybe too general to be helpful here) and PLAY (read: trial and error).

However, if any of those sources claim to be teaching you so-called "Game Theory Optimization" please do two things for me:
1) Send me their info
2) Stop paying them any money if you are - or at the very least explain to them to not use this ill-advised term in future sessions

Why? Because with a very high probability I can state that they are not now and have never been a member of my team or staff. And, therefore, none of them have "closed" GTO ever. I know for a fact that my team have all signed agreements specifically not to do this, so, I'd assume needless to say, I'd have a very easy lawsuit in my lap.

Does this mean that no one else in the history of the world has TRIED to "solve" GTO, or ever worked on it to the point of thinking they have useful knowledge to share?
Please. That would be preposterous. Please re-read for what I actually said. If you're comfortable being in a relationship (business transactions count) with someone who claims authority on the subject when really they have, at best, an obstuse understanding of even the basic concepts involved - be my guest. I'd still like their information, though. I'm very protective over my Intellectual Property and do not like intrusions.

No. This attitude you bring really sucks. How do you expect us to learn if we're not allowed to state theory or ask questions?

lol wtf?


You don't need to have a perfect model for it to be useful, go away.

nigerian princes coming to poker

Something does not need to be an equation or proof to use the term solve. It makes perfect sense when someone uses the term solve when referring to a game they set up. Hell, pioSOLVER solves games.

"Check out this solution to a shove/fold game I came up with."

That sounds alright.
Your post is a bit pretentious.

When you see an incorrect statement a more helpful approach would be to possibly correct the individual making it instead of being a smart ass. If it is a mathematical statement you may even attempt to prove or disprove that statement. If your proof is helpful the individual may solve it.

Stated in the only other thread I'm aware that I have discussed this - it is currently still under peer review and is not able to be properly published/distributed yet, sorry. But since I led the team, I retained (I guess in my opinion) a good amount of the findings and can compare that to what others view regarding the game. And as I said in the other thread, I'd be thoroughly shocked if anyone here read the entire publication. I don't judge them or fault them for this. You sort of have to be in the field to even want to read it all and not all in the field will bother to, at least initially. Also, the applications to the game of poker (that I see, but, honestly, that the team is not in unanimous agreement on) are so little of the finding, that I don't see reading it all just to get that sliver.

It isn't a bit pretentious, it is supercalafragilisticexpaladocious pretentious.

I'm not the only one who feels that what we have done is some of the best work in the area since Nash. And I can say that based on what we found, a "solution" is not forthcoming in the foreseeable future. As I alluded to already over there, this would happen for holdem before Omaha.

I can't explain my point without being super lengthy in my description AND not coming across pretentious. But, the major part of the point that I think you guys might want is as follows:

You can say other games, using Chess as an example, that are considered "solved" because even with millions of variations on play, they don't have the same variables we do. Sure, at lower levels they have human error. Sure, when Bobby Fischer went for ultimate glory he specfically took unconvential lines to throw off his opponents. But few people would say that things like "luck" (you may not believe in long-term luck but short-term luck is hard to refute), variance, etc., makes it so that solutions can't really reach 100%.

So then what? You can have optimal play, but you can't have optimal results, as no one and no line of play can dictate results.

with regards to the question in the OP, remember that GTO play assumes both players know each other's strategies. By bluffcatching with hands that are not in the top of your range, the opponent can now value bet wider (since he knows your calling range is weaker than if you just called the top of your range).

There are definitely good spots to call the middle of your range some % of the time though, such as when the opponents blockers are very very effective.