So I play microstakes 5NL and 10 NL and would like to have a better understanding of cbetting and the ratio in which we balance or bluffs and value hands. I am just unsure of the math and the concepts behind the math. In this instance I am talking about a single raise pot where villain flats either IP or OOP.

Any help would be very appreciated. Thank YOU

spadez

This is very complicated and probably better suited to the Micro-Small Stakes NLHE forum.

Game theory says you should c-bet a fair mixture of made hands, good draws, and low value hands with blockers and backdoor draws. There is really no such thing as an “air bluff” with the nut low on the flop in Holdem since the hand is far from over, and opponents can easily exploit weak c-bet ranges.

So, how often you c-bet becomes a function of your ranges. Tight ranges c-bet less often because they miss more flops. Wide ranges play many more hands so can not afford to c-bet all of them. Somewhere between these extremes is where *you* are located.

The math is found in several 2+2 books, such as both volumes by Matt Janda.

Protection and reducing the profitability of the opponents range are the primary factors for creating a value range. The price set by the betsize and implied odds are the most important factors for creating a drawing range that both immediately profit from fold equity and maximize the profitability of the value range.

I used to be really into investigating my bluffing frequency in many spots, that is before I became convinced that mixed strategies were necessary to beat the modern game. Because of all the work with equity calculators, I can make good guesses at things like hand vs range equity distributions, range vs range equity distributions, value combo counts, bluffing combo counts, bluffing frequencies, etc. I think you should download equilab, or some free equity calculator, and analyze lots of situations.

There's no optimum value:bluff ratio to aim for on the flop, because hands don't neatly split into value hands and bluffs.

If the board texture is such that villain has to "overfold", because his range doesn't connect well, you can often add some total air to your c-bet range, but generally speaking you should be betting with hands that retain their equity against the range that continues vs a c-bet. (With a lot of your c-betting range, you should be firing the turn. If you can't visualize barreling many turns with hand XX, it's often not a slam-dunk c-bet in the first place).

e.g. On K92, you'd c-bet with 99 because you have the second nuts, and it will still have a load of equity on the turn vs the range that calls on the flop. (Even if villain has a straight draw and binks the turn, you'll still have 10 outs). You'd often also bet QJ/JT, because they'll still have a straight draw, or can bink a pair that beats a nine, but you'd rarely bet something like 88, since it doesn't have a lot of equity vs the range that continues, and only has 2 outs when behind. You might also want to check back hands like AQ (nut air), in order to keep dominated hands (Ax, Qx) in the pot to get your value later. Checking back AQ would also prevent you getting check-raise bluffed off what is often the best hand.

You just have to divide your range up into "robust equity" hands that want to build the pot against a narrowing range, or leverage some fold equity, and those that want to keep the pot small against a range that stays wide (when you check).
I repeat that there's no ratio to aim for. You have to ask yourself what villain's response will be to your bet. If he's going to call or raise a lot on a particular board, then you obviously shouldn't bluff a lot on it.

P.S. The sizing you use also has an effect. Since a larger size will cause more folds, you can usually be more polarized and bet some random air profitably (e.g. 76s on K92r) if you go bigger. You really have to think about villain's response to your sizing and perceived range, since how he/she reacts is where your EV comes from.

First of all thanks for the info. Its really appreciated.

So first we should be cbetting flops at different frequencies depending of texture as well as how often villain c/r or raise IP?I think i am decent at understanding what hands should be bet in terms retaining equity and having robust equity of flop and turn. I think my issue is some turn but mostly river spots.
I think the rule of thumb is that in order for a hand to be a value bet is must win at least 50% of the time when called??

Then also how many bluffs(since hands cannot improve)?

Thanks a ton

spadez

Yeah, the texture (and how it impacts each range) is basically the crux of the game. You wouldn't want to c-bet hands like AQhh on 9c 8c 6d in BTN vs BB, because you have very little equity vs the hands that continue, and you're (theoretically at least) gonna get check-raised very often, because that flop is "good" for the BB. You'd do better by betting hands that actually have some connection with the board, including most of your draws, since these have blockers as well as draw equity. (FWIW, even the best overpairs should probably check back sometimes on that flop, since they won't be able to go for three streets of value on most runouts).

Note that when you're OOP, you should tread even more carefully (and c-bet less often and generally for a smaller size), because it's "easier" for the player in position to float, partly because he'll have a stronger range than the BB would in the first place.

On the river, yeah, it's true that a "value bet" is one that wins the majority of the time when called. How often you bluff there partly depends on the size you go with. In a purely polar vs bluffcatcher spot (i.e. you only bet nuts and air, and villain calls with mid-strength hands) the ratio for value:bluff for a pot-sized bet would be 2:1 (i.e. you bluff a third of the time), but ranges are often still quite assymetrical, so sometimes you should "overbluff" (expecting folds) and sometimes you should hardly bluff at all. If you can work out what most of villain's range wants you to do, and then do the opposite, you'll crush him/her!

As Rob said, Matt Janda's books are good for deeper analysis of this subject, but it's all just about ranging, ranging, ranging. Bet/bluff more on the boards that are good for your range, bet less often on the ones that are good for villain. Easy game.

Very insightful. Yea i have applications of NLH and have learned quite a bit from it but sometimes it reads like a textbook. Good job on explaining it in a way that it is digestible.

So I was working with some river ranges and was noticing that villains range was filled with mostly 1pair hands and middle pair hands which undoubtedly would prefer my range to check back river(Villain OOP), This would be an example of a spot where we could apply more bluffs than a third of the time to a PSB where villain is in a tough spot? I think thats what your trying to explain to me and i think it makes a ton of sense.

spadez

Yeah, when villain just has a bunch of one pair bluff-catchers, and he'll sigh-call if you bet small, you can often go big and bluff a lot to make him overfold, if you have enough nutted hands in your range that you can represent. Some players will end up folding so often that vast chunks of your range become +EV bluffs.

Janda's first book popularized the idea of ratios and ("minimum defence") frequencies, but it turned out to be kind of wrong about actual GTO strategy, so I'd recommend skipping most of the equations, and just work on ranging and maximising EV. His second book is better (and a lot more readable), because he had some access to solvers when writing it, whereas his first theory book was more 'best guesses' than verificable 'proofs'.

We should have 1 to 2 value bluff ratio on the flop, 1 to 1 on the turn and 2 to 1 on the river. Is this ratio still apply to today game? I know if we bet pot on river we should have 2 to 1 value bluff ratio. But how about on flop and turn? How sizing change our value bluff ratio on flop and turn? Bigger bet allow more bluff? Smaller bet allow us to bet wider range so it should have more bluff? Also, will the action we take change our value bluff ratio? Like if we check raise on flop we still should have 1 to 2 value bluff ratio?

If the above ratio is correct meaning if we bet 30 combos for value and 60 combos for bluff on the flop we should check fold give up half the bluff combos that we bluff on the flop (30 combos)? As you said “With a lot of your c-betting range, you should be firing the turn.“ So give up about half the bluff combos is fine? This is quite a lot of check fold combos on turn. Should we balance these check fold combos on turn with some hand that we will check call? Like some top pair. Or we don’t have to balance our check fold range on turn?

Any advice would be appreciated! Thanks

As I said in an earlier post (and many other posts in this forum), I'm not a great believer in using ratios and frequencies on the early streets. If you pick a "balanced" range of hands that will have solid equity on most runouts, you'll be able to barrel at a decent frequency (whatever "decent" means, there really isn't a precise number) and won't end up having to check the turn and then fold the river too often. i.e. Some people c-bet way too often on boards where they shouldn't be c-betting a lot, and then their turn/river range is in bad shape vs the range that called on the flop.

Literally every flop and board runout has a different solution, so even if the terms "value" and "bluff" were clear, it would be wrong to say anything like "have a ratio of 1:2 on the flop and 1:1 on the turn". Some of your strong hands become weak on the turn, and some of your unmade hands on the flop become the nuts on the turn. A 'good' c-betting range is one in which you've always got "enough" combos of the nuts on every possible runout, and every action sequence. It's why it's appropriate to bet some/most of your draws, but also check back with some. (e.g. you want to be able to turn a monster even if you check back the flop). I can't give you a precise number, because it's different in every spot. Sometimes your range does best by betting loads of unmade hands, including hands that have no draw at all, and sometimes it does best by hardly bluffing at all. You can only get to grips with it all by studying/analysing hundreds of spots. You'll find some trends/similarities between some textures, but you won't find strict ratios or frequencies.

P.S. As an example of what I mean, that is somewhat relevant to your other questions, imagine that you check-raise (in the BB vs BTN) on something like 8h 6h 5c. If the turn comes a heart (completing the flush), your flush draws are now "nuts", but your sets and 2 pairs nosedived in value, and your straight draws could be drawing dead. The strategy for what to do on the turn will be radically different if it's a heart, an ace, a nine, a card that pairs the board, or an offsuit deuce. You just want to build a "good" flop check-raising range so that you'll be able to keep barreling "fairly often" (whatever that means) on all possible turns. Sometimes the turn will just be a terrible card for your range. In that case, you might have to check-fold at an annoyingly high frequency, but the correct strategy for the flop will be the one that maximises EV on average. You can't use a strict ratio/frequency, because you don't know what the turn card will actually be!

Certainly true, but for any decision where cards are still to be dealt, you obviously never know what a future card(s) will be. Perhaps, for the value/bluff ratio situation, the knowledge lack is more critical than for other cases, such as implied odds analysis. I suggest that the theoretical ratios that have been proposed still offer a starting point for making potential adjustments, and you have provided examples in some of your posts. Your use of the term “strick” is perhaps in keeping with this thought.