on low equity bluffs
04-16-2018
, 07:13 AM
I rambled a bit in the medium stakes limit holdem forum, but we can talk no limit holdem if you like. I think that all of the below mumbo jumbo is true, but I don't think the list of characteristics is comprehensive. Any corrections or additions are welcome.
link to the backstory for posterity:
https://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/5...t/dry-1708904/
the relevant original post:
Please note that "35% cutoff opening range" is pretty standard for limit holdem, and also note that this flop should be bet by the cutoff at a frequency approaching or equal to 100%.
It's my current belief that putting together the puzzle above results in range construction that follows this pattern in both limit holdem and no limit holdem:
-very low equity* junk = check fold 100%
-low equity draws** = check raise or check fold at frequency depending on draw strength
-high equity draws***= check raise or check call at frequency depending on draw strength
-very high equity draws**** = check raise 100%
I can continue such a description of range construction to include value hands, but I wish somewhat tether this conversation to the topic of low equity draws.
*here I use the term equity to mean [(showdown ev)+(nonshowdown ev)] = (total ev/pot) which is a fraction that is equal to a hand's true pot share.
**here I use the term draw to describe hands that might improve to a winning hand on the next street, but I do not include bluffcatchers in this group.
***here I use the term draw to describe hands that might improve to a winning hand on the next street, as well as bluffcatchers which are drawing at blanks. However, the bluffcatchers that have little chance of improving to a winning hand on the next street are not draws in the traditional sense since the equity of these hands will not spike on the next street. Instead, the equity of these bluffcatchers will only increase slightly; then as the opponent chooses to check or bet the next street, this equity of bluffcatchers will increase or decrease slightly, respectively.
****these are the dominating draws, which I believe should be check raised at frequency approaching or equal to 100%. These hands may or may not receive a portion of the existing pot due to unimproved showdown value, and the cards that cause a pot share regression are relatively few in number if compared with the other groups above.
----
Back to the topic of low equity bluffs:
Whether preflop, flop, or turn, I believe that the conditions described above will continue to be true; low equity bluffs are a functional part of a solid modern poker strategy. If taken too far and bluffed at too high of a frequency, these low equity bluffs might cause us to become quite bluff heavy. If these low equity bluffs are excluded from our strategy without exploitive cause, we may become value heavy. If we choose the wrong low equity draws with which to bluff and which to form the bottom of our range, perhaps by choosing to bluff from the bottom of our range, then we in effect are reducing the profitability of our bluffing range and we are reducing the number of profitable bluffing combinations; both of these effects will be caused by a lack of (draw ev when called).
Here's an example of a proper (read: Cepheus is assumed to play perfect, unexploitable, nash equilibrium strategy at the game of limit holdem) low equity bluff:
Quote:
There is a specific hand, although I cannot identify this hand, a hand which is -ev as a call, yet this hand will receive an ev of zero by check raising the flop. This hand is similar to certain preflop raises that are unprofitable when called, yet these hands receive enough profit by winning before the river that these hands are 0ev preflop raises. These preflop low equity bluffs and the specific hand that receives a profit of zero by check raising the flop are characteristically similar in a few ways:
--these hands are unprofitable as calls
--these hands are unprofitable when called
--these hands are not selected from the bottom of the available range of hands that we have to choose from. ie we don't raise 32o preflop in order to polarize our range. Instead we choose to raise hands like 98o and 54s.
--these hands form the bottom of our range which continues to the next action. Those hands with less realizable equity are folded 100% and hands with more realizable equity either check raise or check call.
--the very worst hand in both the preflop raising range and the flop check raise range will have an ev of zero.
--these hands are unprofitable as calls
--these hands are unprofitable when called
--these hands are not selected from the bottom of the available range of hands that we have to choose from. ie we don't raise 32o preflop in order to polarize our range. Instead we choose to raise hands like 98o and 54s.
--these hands form the bottom of our range which continues to the next action. Those hands with less realizable equity are folded 100% and hands with more realizable equity either check raise or check call.
--the very worst hand in both the preflop raising range and the flop check raise range will have an ev of zero.
https://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/5...t/dry-1708904/
the relevant original post:
Quote:
CO...I've played maybe 20 hours with him. He seems to be a decent TAG. Seems fairly straightforward. Not overly combative. I don't think he has a flop 3 bet range IP. He has checked the turn a couple times with UIP over cards. I suspect his opening range is 35% ish.
He probably see's me as TAG.
CO opens and I call in BB with JdTc
7h2dKd....c/c, c/r, or c/f?
Is there a "rule of thimb" equity percentage needed to continue here?
He probably see's me as TAG.
CO opens and I call in BB with JdTc
7h2dKd....c/c, c/r, or c/f?
Is there a "rule of thimb" equity percentage needed to continue here?
It's my current belief that putting together the puzzle above results in range construction that follows this pattern in both limit holdem and no limit holdem:
-very low equity* junk = check fold 100%
-low equity draws** = check raise or check fold at frequency depending on draw strength
-high equity draws***= check raise or check call at frequency depending on draw strength
-very high equity draws**** = check raise 100%
I can continue such a description of range construction to include value hands, but I wish somewhat tether this conversation to the topic of low equity draws.
*here I use the term equity to mean [(showdown ev)+(nonshowdown ev)] = (total ev/pot) which is a fraction that is equal to a hand's true pot share.
**here I use the term draw to describe hands that might improve to a winning hand on the next street, but I do not include bluffcatchers in this group.
***here I use the term draw to describe hands that might improve to a winning hand on the next street, as well as bluffcatchers which are drawing at blanks. However, the bluffcatchers that have little chance of improving to a winning hand on the next street are not draws in the traditional sense since the equity of these hands will not spike on the next street. Instead, the equity of these bluffcatchers will only increase slightly; then as the opponent chooses to check or bet the next street, this equity of bluffcatchers will increase or decrease slightly, respectively.
****these are the dominating draws, which I believe should be check raised at frequency approaching or equal to 100%. These hands may or may not receive a portion of the existing pot due to unimproved showdown value, and the cards that cause a pot share regression are relatively few in number if compared with the other groups above.
----
Back to the topic of low equity bluffs:
Whether preflop, flop, or turn, I believe that the conditions described above will continue to be true; low equity bluffs are a functional part of a solid modern poker strategy. If taken too far and bluffed at too high of a frequency, these low equity bluffs might cause us to become quite bluff heavy. If these low equity bluffs are excluded from our strategy without exploitive cause, we may become value heavy. If we choose the wrong low equity draws with which to bluff and which to form the bottom of our range, perhaps by choosing to bluff from the bottom of our range, then we in effect are reducing the profitability of our bluffing range and we are reducing the number of profitable bluffing combinations; both of these effects will be caused by a lack of (draw ev when called).
Here's an example of a proper (read: Cepheus is assumed to play perfect, unexploitable, nash equilibrium strategy at the game of limit holdem) low equity bluff:
Quote:
Cepheus raises preflop, I call in the big blind.
K
T9
I check call.
9
I check call.
I forget the river, but the point is that I check called and Cepheus shows 65o. I don't like the turn bet as I don't think there's enough fold equity nor enough pair draw equity to make a bluff more profitable than checking back the turn. Perhaps it's a very low frequency bluff on the turn, which makes it less bad imo, but I still like a turn check here.
K
T9I check call.
9
I check call.
I forget the river, but the point is that I check called and Cepheus shows 65o. I don't like the turn bet as I don't think there's enough fold equity nor enough pair draw equity to make a bluff more profitable than checking back the turn. Perhaps it's a very low frequency bluff on the turn, which makes it less bad imo, but I still like a turn check here.
