Quote:
Originally Posted by zachvac
This piece alone entirely discredits the author as having no clue as to what the goal of balancing is. What he says is factually true, but what he's implying is not. He wins the individual hands when he's not bluffing, but he also loses all the hands he could profitably bluff and allows his opponent to win when his opponent has a worse hand than would bluff-catch.
You are probably right and I probably have no clue what I am talking about; however, I am trying to learn. I assumed balancing was taking a line that properly constructs your range to have the correct number of bluffs to value ratio when compared to the odds you’re giving your opponent. In other words if I am playing a player who makes a pot size bet on the river he is laying me 1:2 odds on a call. That means his range should consist of 1 bluff for every 2 value bets to remain perfectly balanced and make me indifferent on a call. When I call with 66% of my range I will win 33% of the time and will lose 66% of the time and when I fold the other 33% of my range I lose 100% of the time. That is to say I breakeven on my call and lose no money the times I am folding. My EV on this call is $0 because my opponent is 100% balanced.
Your argument is that I lose the times that my opponent would fold a hand he can’t bluff catch with. I was under the understanding that bluff catching from a MDF perspective is taking the range you can’t profitably raise with and calling with X% of that and folding the other percent. That means that you might be calling with high card hands and not made hands depending on yours range you reach this spot with. A T high can be a bluff catcher even though many would say it is not. Stu Ungar called with T high in a WSOP event. I have seen similar calls of Q and K highs by pros. I can think of many times that I bluffed Flop and Turn and gave up on river to win with a high card. A couple of days ago I won with 7 high when my opponent was drawing to the bottom end of a wheel. The hands that opponent is most likely to fold are the hands that he is drawing with and hands that some of our bluffs beat. Isn’t it impossible to construct a perfect range OTR since our bluffs will sometimes win at showdown and our value hands will sometimes lose? All we can do is make assumptions and calculate from there right?
Quote:
Originally Posted by zachvac
I understand he said it was an extreme example, but it was an extreme example meant to prove his point, when in reality it completely discredits it.
Let’s say I am playing in a player pool against three different types of opponents that probably reasonably exist. Opponent A constructs his range perfectly. Opponent B constructs his range with too many bluffs. And Opponent C constructs his range with no bluffs.
Opponent A makes a pot size bet with perfectly balanced range. My EV on this could be shown as 0=(0.666*($200*0.333-$100*0.666))-(0.333($0)).
Opponent B: He constructs his range with 1:1 ratio of bluffs to value. That means When I call with 66% of my range I will win 50% of the time and will lose 50% of the time and when I fold the other 33% of my range I lose nothing. My EV when opponent is bluffing too much is $50=(0.666*($200*0.50-$100*0.50))-(0.333($0)).
Opponent C: He constructs his range with all value and no bluffs. That means when I call with 66% of my range I will lose 100% of the time and when I fold I lose nothing. My EV against this opponent is -$100=(0.666*($200*0.00-$100*1.00))-(0.333($0)).
I have no way of knowing who I am playing; however, against these three opponents I lose more to opponent C. The more one opponent moves closer to optimal either way, the more he gains or loses depending on the direction he goes.
What am I missing here?
Quote:
Originally Posted by zachvac
To put a simpler way, the author sounds like this: "I just wait for AA and shove all-in every time I get it. The reason this works so well is other people balance for me, and aren't able to fold KK or even QQ/AK sometimes because they think I'm balanced, even though they lose every time they call." Sure in that scenario you win their stack every time you get AA and someone else has KK, but you're losing a ton of money in all the other scenarios when you could have won smaller pots.
No where in my response do I remember saying that I play this way, that I never bluff, or that I do anything one way or the other. I said Bovada gives you the opportunity to play against an opponent with him having no clue how you are playing. I have read players responses on different forums who claim high winrates by playing super nitty and those that play extremely aggressive due to players not knowing what they are doing. I think it is an interesting dynamic that you don't find anywhere else and is worth discussing.