[QUOTE=Aaron W.;54524592] We're against a tag, which I take literally to mean "good player." This implies to me that this opponent will bluffcatch at near correct frequencies, which will make bluffing almost 0ev(of course nobody's perfect but in equilibrium heads up out of position bluffs are 0ev). I think the small ev gain acknowledged by Aaron above is worth more than the potential profits gained by calling down a tag on the river, who very well might be a bit value heavy.


Do you bluff every worse hand available to you in your turn betting range? I would think that bluffing KJs, while checking 87o unimproved, would be just plain backwards poker. I would also think that if you are in fact betting KJs or worse, you either don't carry enough weaker bluffs in your turn betting range, or you will bluff way too much.

If he can safely call with (every hand that beats a bluff on the river, which in your case is 22) without you giving up on bluffs, he's going to beat you in the long run.

This is exactly because (hands that can't beat a bluff) may be safely folded on the river without fear of exploitation, provided that earlier streets were played correctly. For example, I don't include unimproved 76ss in my river minimum defense frequency calculation because it can't beat a bluff. Thus it's not a liability to my range.

So yeah, if he's calling every hand that can beat a bluff, he's not in equilibrium, you can exploit this by literally never bluffing because it's not profitable.

If you show up on the river with a hand that can't beat a bluff, then that hand is still part of your river range. If you throw out all of those hands from consideration before you do an MDF calculation, your defending range is going to be too small, and villains can bluff you profitably.

If I called with 32ss unimproved on the river here, I would surely be making an unprofitable call, no matter how you stack the opposing range in my favor(realistically speaking of rational agents playing a game that they're trying to win), I'm losing money by calling because I can't even beat a bluff.

This strategy is dominated by the strategy that folds all -ev calls on the river facing a bet. If a strategy is dominated it's not equilibrium.

Thus the worst hand that I need to consider as btn facing the river bet is my worst hand that can beat a bluff, which has the same ev for calling or folding the river as the rest of the pure bluffcatchers have for calling or folding (0ev). Only our options with ev greater than or equal to zero matter.

If we set up a game with unfair distributions like this: (0,1) game two players playing to the second decimal place(0, 0.01.....0.99, 1) with removal. And we give one player an unfair share of (0), and the other player n unfair share of (1), would you still play according to strict mdf?

But don't take it from me, here's a clip of a post made by swc123 of 2+2. He created gtorangebuilder.

I'll disagree that this is a useful definition, but that's not actually the point.

I'm not sure I'm check-raising 87o or trying to barrel off with it. Given the board texture, it's not clear that there's enough value there when there are so many other better hands to be playing.

As I said, if he's that bad that he's calling down with 22, then I'm owning him with value. And maybe I can do slightly better in this precise spot by not bluffing KJs, but then I'm also not reinforcing the idea that he needs to call me down a lot and quite possibly encouraging him to make folds in the future.

I'm really not worried about it.

You don't give your opponent's much credit. To me very few players actually qualify for tag status. They're generally players that seem to understand the game very well, and their strategies perform well vs all player types.

Maybe mongidig can confirm this read. For now I'm going to keep assuming that tag = good player.

Do you check raise any naked straight draws? I think you should, or else you won't have any bluffs on the spade spade runout if your check raise bluffs are all flushdraws, in which case they should fold all hands that can only beat a bluff.

I'm not sure how you go from thinking that "he's so bad for calling 22" directly to thinking that you need to reinforce his mistake of calling too much:
You're advertising, potentially at a cost, with a hand that can beat a bluff. This is poor bluffing range construction either on the river, or perhaps on an earlier street by not bluffing a better mix of draws on the flop and turn.

This is remedied by check raising somewhat more often with hands like 87, 86, 76, and selectively barreling the turn(likely for a slight profit with the gutshot, particularly more if turned open ender), and then once in a while you make it all the way to the river with a hand that can't win a showdown, so you bluff the river too 100%. This will probably add much more value to your river range than your advertising with King high.

To be clear, the disagreement is with the meaning of "good player" and not with "TAG". The claim that "this opponent will bluffcatch at near correct frequencies" goes well beyond a "good" player in my understanding of the term "good."

A spade-spade runout is a 4-spade board. I don't need an 8-high-no-flush to be considering my bet to be a bluff. There are one pair hands that will suffice.

I think you're overly concerned about something that's not really an issue, much in the same way I think were overly concerned about finding a check-raise-river-bluff range. You're trying to find what looks to be a singularly ideal bluff hand whereas I'm content that K-high is a good enough bluff hand. The value difference in trying to add an extra 8-high bluffing hand isn't big enough for me to be bothered by not having one.

I think bluffing with KJs unimproved on any river is immediately unprofitable vs a tag opponent and misses checking value. A loss of ev in a poker strat forum should probably be an issue worth taking seriously, else why even respond to strat threads?

You are free to think as you will. You have not made a strong enough presentation to convince me of your position.

You are free to think as you will. I think the precision of your analysis falls within the noise of reality and I remain unbothered by not having an 8-high-no-flush hand to bluff with on a spade-spade runout.

Ad 9s 5s

If most of you are x/r’ing KsJs on this board, what are you doing with the following hands?

KsQs, KsTs, Ks8s, Ks7s, Ks6s, Ks4s, Ks3s, Ks2s
QsJs, QsTs, Qs8s, Qs7s, Qs6s, Qs4s, Qs3s, Qs2s
JsTs, Js8s, Js7s, Js6s, Js4s, Js3s, Js2s
Ts8s, Ts7s, Ts6s, Ts4s, Ts3s, Ts2s
8s7s, 8s6s, 8s4s, 8s3s, 8s2s,
7s6s, 7s4s, 7s3s, 7s2s
6s4s, 6s3s, 6s2s
4s3s, 4s2s
3s2s

All of that makes my head hurt. Half of the reason that I c/r is bec of the Ace on the flop which every non-Ace hand that V. has hates. We have a chance to get a better hand to fold and we have outs if it doesn't work.

There's definitely a lot of check-raising going on. But that's true in general because I'm not 3-betting preflop. But this doesn't mean I'm check-raising and firing all streets with all of them.

There are times that I'll check-call some flush draws to try to protect my check-calling range, but I'll admit it's not a carefully considered pattern. A lot of it is reacting to the board texture and my thoughts about villain's aggressiveness and willingness to see showdown.

The more aggressive, the more I'll check-call because I can wait to get value when I hit my hand instead of investing extra money without it. The more likely to see showdown, the more I'll check-call because bluffing loses value. (And if villain plays nearly perfectly, I'm in the wrong game.)

The singularly ideal bluff hand on the river is a function of the starting ranges(tag btn vs standard big blind defense range) and board progression. Due to the width of the starting ranges, I don't think KJs should ever be at the bottom of my range. Thus I never bluff the river with KJs unimproved following that action.

If you can bluff KJs and anything worse in your range on any river following that action without bluffing too much, I think it indicates a problem with your flop and or turn strategy:

You're missing bluff value on early streets, not just with the mentioned 87o, but likely with many hands that are dependent on postflop bluff ev as a preflop call. If you're defending the big blind with 87o, 86o, 76o, 43s, 42s, 32s, but you're never check raising this flop without a flushdraw, those hands will lose ev, with the exception of being against a passive turn bettor that gives many free rivers.

The loss of ev has the potential to be compounded by a loss of ev for the value range, due to the opponent folding more due to your likely value heavy range.

It's entirely possible. I'm not going to pretend I've done a deep analysis of this situation to know precisely how all parts of the range behave on all streets. Or you may also be overestimating my value check-raising range.

But in all cases, I'm still unbothered by fussing about the check-through value of K-high against Q-high and the pursuit of an 8-high-no-flush hand to bluff with. It seems you're seeking adjustments that fall within the noise.

To answer the question in the OP, just call with this hand.

This seems like a pretty clear check/raise but I would definitely check the turn if he calls.

i just call here

Thanks for the great discussion!

I think check/calling is probably correct in terms of balance. I think balance, however, may be a little overrated in the games I play in. I'm not convinced that even some of the better players are both paying attention and taking advantage of the information. Therefore, I tend to play a more exploiting style which would include often CR this hand on the flop.

If I am in a situation where balance is important, I think calling twice with Kxs and Qxs type hands makes sense and CR the rest. I would CR all pairs of A's, J9+ and all monsters. I would just call all other pairs. Does this sound about right? Would you include any gutters or airballs in the CR range? Do you CR maybe some of the worse Kxs and Qxs hands?

I think donk/checking some turns makes sense with some of the weaker showdownable hands.

How does x/r’ing KJs exploit your opponent?

IF they fold too many pairs.

Do you have a c/r range?

yeah, and i'd have lower flushdraws in it for sure

I'm targeting a wide range that will have a tough time continuing on this board. I realize there aren't a ton of better hands that will fold to a CR, but I'm also happy if they fold worse and I can take it down with K high. I suppose I would be exploiting those who fold too much or don't fight back.

I do think against tougher, thinking players that calling is best.