The MDF equation is all about continuation ( defense frequency ). Continuation is call or bet. ( not folding ). The bet part can be for several things, including bluffing.

Bluff catching is not math, it is about reading the board and your opponent and determining that he is probably bluffing. Nothing at all to do with MDF.

I’m out. GL.

So this is just Yoluda, or whatever that guy's name was?

Assertion with no evidence (which also happens to be untrue).

Like you did above.

You can't "prove" a negative. Ex., what are the facts of reality that prove the non-existence of a non-existent.

Don't like speaking for Robert, but he likely mentions them because a c-bet is the concept that actually exists and refers to the action of a bet after an open raise by the aggressor, not the non-existent "MDF bluff".

If you want your ideas to be taken with any degree of seriousness, you should probably call a bluff range a "bluff range", not a "mininum defence frequency range", since the latter would make more sense as the response to a bluff.

A bluff is an aggressive action. It's not considered defensive.
Some players use the MDF number to create ranges that defend against those aggressive bluffs.
In poker, you can't defend at the same time as going on the attack. It's a turn-based game. One player aggressively bets (sometimes as a bluff) and the other defends against those bets.
As Rob said, there is no such thing as an "MDF bluff range". It's literally not a thing. You don't bluff to bring yourself up to the MDF number. You bet with a mix of value hands and bluffs, and the other player may use MDF to help him build a continuance range.

I don't know if you have any knowledge of chess, but your idea of the initial player having a "MDF bluff range" sounds as idiotic as saying "White plays the Sicilian Defense".

It's fairly easy to use some simple EV math and a few acceptable assumptions why MDF should not be strictly followed in most real poker (i.e. not idealized toy games) scenarios.

[SPOILER]Hint: What happens when I call with hands that don't have the equity to continue? What happens if my range is composed of more hands that don't have the equity to continue than MDF requires?[/SPOILER]




So confused by this. Pot control is a thing, people still do talk about it and it is a part of good poker.

I am sure some of the reasons WHY people pot controlled were bad in the old days, but that is not the same thing as pot control itself being bad.

@Didace Definitely Yadoula8 all over again.

MDF Continue Range ( MCR ) = MDF - normal actions.
Please consider this data. It does exist. I can show you my MBR ranges.


The way that it works, for me, is that all fold decisions are deferred to the MBR range. Fold decisions are not final until the MCR range has been evaluated. The whole idea is to reach the calculated MDF range. If your opponent has a frequency that is not MDF then he can be exploited using this method.


Maybe I should not have used the word bluff. Call it an MCR action. It is a frequency with which you need to bet or call in order to reach the MDF frequency. I plead guilty to using terms that have possible different meanings to others. Hope this helps. Sorry.

Math is math. The equations are valid. Can we discuss the math?

Is this math:

MBF - QFT = Normal actions + MBR?

Math works because you either use expressions already well defined in mathematics or your field of discipline or clearly and concisely explain all of your variables and novel notations.

Just because you stick operators in between words/abbreviations does not make it math.

Also I tried to give you a hint. There is a really simple way using equity that hints at why a strict mdf isn't practical in real poker. It's relatvely easy to work out.

You guys are getting trolled.

I really do want a discussion. Please tell me the simple way.

The primary equations that I have used are commonly accepted. That is the calculation of MDF and the calculation of EV.


The third equation is MDF Continue Range ( MCR ) = MDF - normal actions.

I'll try to better define what normal actions are. It is the frequency that you continue with, without considering MDF. When you do not fold.

It's simple Algebra. Nothing complicated.

x= y - z
x is MCR , y is MDF, z is continuing without considering MDF.

y = z + x or MDF = z + MCR the

Clearly, you can maintain an MDF frequency with that simple equation.

^ That is A+ trolling right there. Bravo.

is this the same guy that did shadow ranges? Cause if so that is hilarious. Both times I opened these threads and was like "... is there something I am not getting, is this guy just way smarter than me? Wow this sounds really deep and hard to decipher"

Then it turns out everyone comes into the thread and is like "yeah, no that's dumb"

+1

I have no intention of Trolling anyone. If I have then I apologize. No excuses.

It's astonishing how little actual discussion there is in these forums. A lot of people with good thoughts to contribute to a discussion may be discouraged by various forms of personal attacks. I have tried to avoid that. Please tell me whenever I Troll or get personal or insult. Just be specific. OK?

MDF fails before the river (and sometimes on the river) for a simple reason. MDF works by forcing villain's worst bluffs to be 0 EV. However, it does not consider that almost all would-be bluffs can be profitable as checks instead. Forcing bluffs to be 0-EV is clearly not an equilibrium strategy when they can be +EV checks instead. MDF also relies on the false assumption that preventing villain from bluffing indiscriminately is a worthy goal. There are spots where it's very reasonable to bet 100% of one's range.

I think MDF could be a useful concept, but it should be modified. It doesn't really deserved to be bashed so much. I believe it is pretty accurate even on early streets when considering how to defend against a raise, anyway? In that case preventing villain from raising ATC IS a worthy goal, because if villain can raise ATC, he never folds and our bluffs our -EV. I believe MDF clearly belongs in part of an equilibrium strategy when facing a raise. Are there scenarios where this isn't the case? I suppose cases where we bet expecting villain to never fold, but it is still correct to bet for equity denial or something?

There are reasons people say you're trolling. I know you're not. But the reasons people think you're trolling are also problems with your posts

1. you have your mind set to read only - nothing anyone says to you sees to penetrate.

2. you use terms in ways that don't make sense or that are flat out wrong. You persist in this even though it's obvious that it causes people to dismiss you outright.

3. you make claims that are not really substantiated and when challenged you mostly just repeat them. You're not doing a very good job of explaining your points, or really proving anything. Take for example the first post in this thread, which does nothing really except to demonstrate that if your opponent folds too much you'll make money (provided that if he calls you have zero value and also that there are no future betting rounds). Everyone already knows this.

You try to go from there to say that not only does the defender need to call at MDF, but the bettor needs to bet at the same frequency - which has no basis in any of your posts, it's a completely unsubstantiated claim and I can't think of any particular reason it would be true. Your method for achieving this frequency also sort of doesn't make sense, unless you are viewing your actions across your whole range (actual or perceived), which you don't really talk about.

tl;dr your points are not well formed but you sort of just force your way through without ever really explaining yourself or listening to anyone. It's very similar to what intentional trolls do, so people think you're trolling.

Thank you. I will think about your comments.

I do react badly to personal comments. Words like stupid, idiotic, foolish, that's dumb, and so on. I'll try not to react to them in the future.

For your comment
You try to go from there to say that not only does the defender need to call at MDF, but the bettor needs to bet at the same frequency - which has no basis in any of your posts, it's a completely unsubstantiated claim and I can't think of any particular reason it would be true.

Response:
Continuation is defined as calling or betting ( not folding ). I use both a call range and a bet range. The sum of the two ranges is what the MCR is. Minimum Continuation Range. The bet and call frequencies need not be the same, just add up to what I called MCR.

Your response tells me nothing useful at all. I don't know how you don't see that. Give an example, at the very least.

Sorry, I'll try again.

When I play I actually use 4 MCR ranges. When it is checked to me a bet 1 raise range, when there is a bet 2 to me, I also have a call range and a bet3 range. The last 2 don't make much difference in the win rate.

Telling me that you "have ranges" means literally nothing. What are the ranges, how do you arrive at them, what's the justification for choosing those ranges, how do you apply them, and so forth.

Please see previous posts. If you have a specific question please ask that.

I have read the previous posts. They don't explain anything at all. This is the problem, you seem to feel that you've clearly explained yourself, but you haven't, at all.

What, specifically, are the ranges you're assigning to these actions? As in, what percentage of the time will you perform each action? Is it random, or is it based on the board, or your cards, or your range, etc?

Maybe walk through an example of how you'd decide what to do on a given flop (or turn or river or whatever).

This is an example of why people think that you are trolling. In truth it doesn't really matter if you are trolling or not since your posts are essentially identical to those from someone who is trolling.

I suspect that I am being trolled here. I was really trying to answer the question asked in a civil manner.

I won't even pretend to have read all the back and forth here. It seems to be a fair amount of trolling. But I do want to ask a question:

My understanding of MDF is that it is most applicable on the river. That more basic concepts of pot odds/implied odds, etc, are more applicable earlier in the hand. That on the river, when given the option to close the betting a MDF allows hero to not fold too frequently. Such as in the AKQ toy game. Am I wildly wrong here?

Thanks guys.