CardrunnersEV analysis:



Basically - I only need him to fold his KK-JJ 25% of the time for this to be profitable.

Does everyone really think he calls more often than 75% of the time?

That being said: Does everyone think that 75% of players call here with KK-JJ?

75% of the player population thinks on the level that puts me on a bluff AND backs up that thought with a call OOP on the turn where they may have to face river action.

That does not seem accurate to me.

Watched the first 30 seconds. Why the hell are you omitting 75% of AK/AQ combos? Are you serious?

Because of his tendencies to not raise so much with those hands in that position.

But it would have been better if you had said:
Can you run the numbers again weighting AK/AQ at x% preflop and weighting it y% that he checks those on the flop and z% that he bets 50 with them on the turn.

What do you want me to re-run it with?

Sorry, didn't mean to adopt an aggro tone, I just think it's a long long way off the mark. I'm also still watching the video, so I'll give more feedback in a bit. I've never seen this program before btw, what is it?

http://www.cardrunners-ev-calculator.com/Download.html

I really ought to be getting commission from them. It's a friggin awesome program and I reference it a lot.

(Although maybe I'm not a good testament to their software making someone a better player.)

FWIW: Here is the graph with his preflop range including all AQ+ and his flop and turn top pair weight at 50% each.



And here is his AQ+ weighted at 25% by only including AQs and AKs for comparison



Increases my max win EV and slightly decreases my max loss EV but only changes the break-even point by about 5%

Specific comments:

4min: I meant to mention that this is a semi-bluff in my original response, as it's something I didn't see mentioned when I skimmed the thread. However, you're having it both way when you talk about your implied odds: at one point you've acknowledged that this is a transparent bluff and you're banking on villain having no balls, but then on the flip side you're saying he's going to pay you off with an underpair for a much bigger bet when the four card straight falls on the river?

5.15: You talk about the threat of future bets, but as I said above, I get strong vibes that's not too much of a threat from you. You specifically state in your OP that you had no intention of firing again unimproved, so essentially you're offering your villain 4 to 1 odds to look you up after you've taken a line that makes no sense.

6.30: Is Asian Danny not that person who'll call down with second pair?

7.10: Is asian danny weak tight? Is he afraid of monsters under the bed? You never established this as far as I can see.

8: 'given the read I had on the guy...' What read? You have said literally nothing about how Danny plays, but you have included a hand of history that makes him look like a reckless payoff wizard.

General comments: I actually am not as negative on your play as others, and as I say it's the sort of thing I'll do myself often and bank on them not having the stones to look me up. There are lots and lots of considerations to take into account, but I have no doubt that you're right that there are a lot of players against whom this is profitable.

The problem is the way you're looking at the hand and talking about it. This idea of the 'average' player, of the ratio of players at the table who will call or fold etc, it's all redundant. The question is what is Asian Danny going to do. And this is the point at which Scotty seemed to get exasperated with you and said Danny knows more about how you play than you do about how Danny plays... That's a real problem, no matter how strong your fundamentals.

Anyway, I'm not 100% sure about how you've crunched the numbers, but you say you need him to fold JJ-KK 75% of the time. What percentage of the time do you need him to fold flat out? As I've already said, I think you've grossly underestimated big aces when you've thrown his preflop range together (not that it really matters because I think he's unlikely to have played them postflop this way).

I'm saying that if my read is wrong and my bluff doesn't work, then he is the kind of person who will know I am bluffing and decide he has to call the river some of the times. Yes, my play ends up being worse than I hoped. I was counting on the bluff to work. But the implied odds in that situation helps negate part of the EV I lose by my bluff not working.

I'm counting on him not being able to read my line as a bluff and act on it. As such, I'm also counting on him not knowing that I won't fire again on the river.

Yes, but I won't always be playing against Asian Danny and it's good to think about how to play against other types in similar situations.

I increased the likelihood of big aces in my post above and the break-even point for the bluff moved from about 73% to 68%.

The 73%/68% is against his entire range then, not specifically the number of times he has JJ-KK?

The thing is, you've put him on this really narrow range, and I don't disagree with it per se, but it discounts completely the possibility that he'll show up with some other random holding that can call you down profitably. AJ, AT, 55, 77, 99, some wonky two pair... And that's assuming he's not got completely out of line pf and spiked a random ace or something, which does happen sometimes as well.

I agree his range is weighted toward TT-KK, but those types of holdings are floating around in there as well and none of them are folding.

But, to say it again, I don't think this is as spewy as others have suggested (especially as you quite likely have six outs) unless you're up against a good player or a call station. My concern is you don't seem to know whether you are or not.

Without reading the spoiler...contrary to his title, Asian Danny is one of the tightest players in the game. He is only making it $45 preflop w/ A-K, J-J +. Him betting $50 on the turn into a $200 pot leads me to think he either has a set of Aces, or K-K to J-J. I don't think he would have checked A-K on flop. I like the raise, as he will always fold everything but A-A.

if you want to rep the A, you have to bet the flop.

When bluffing, think about how you would play the hand for value. Would you really check the flop, then c/r the turn with a big ace?

My question to everyone who said that the bluff on the turn isn't effective since you'd have to bet the flop to represent an ace or a set: what should we do on the turn? If we're confident that he has JJ-KK, are we supposed to just give up anyway? I understand wanting to rep a big hand for the entire hand, but assuming we do check the flop and were fairly certain he has a pair under aces, what do we do?

The question u should ask yourself is.....would he fold KK to a bet on the turn after checking through the flop. And how much is needed.

There was a window of opportunity for repping a hand better than JJ-KK, and you passed on the chance. Unless you can invent a time machine, just give up. Once you check back the flop, you shouldn't be asking how you can rep a big ace or a set.

You want your betting to tell a story. OP's betting only created confusion, and people go into call-down mode when your line makes no sense.

I just want to add that limping 8's on the button is pretty weak.

If your opponent is capable of hand-reading this is a terrible, terrible bluff.

If they are thinking in the mindset of- damn, kings on an ace high board and this guys betting into me. I fold.

Then it becomes a good bluff (exploiting opponents though process)

best advice ITT.

personally I hate the raise. If you are ahead a call will suffice and see what happens on the river. If you are behind you have to hope its an underpair to the A or you are most likely getting called. Plus what are you representing here? Its set or nothing for you. you were on the button and checked. A big A like AK, AQ would reraise preflop and any single A could have bet that flop with that many in the pot. So he can eliminate an A in your hand. 2 pair maybe but your line is polarized, its usually set, straight, or nothing. I would call and see what the river brought. If it seems like a safe card and he bets again I would call down. If a bad card comes, like K, Q, I can fold easily.

I don't like post oak bluffs against fish. They think "oh I only have to be good 1/5 times, I must call". No one is thinking "man he's betting so small it must be for value". And even if they do think that, they'll call anyway because fish. Also on this particular board does he really think you're going to bet that small for value when it's so drawy? Really? You give your opponents 4:1 when you have a set on a drawy board?

If you're going to run this turn raise make it $350. Just be aware you have one of the worst hands to do it with though, your straight outs are trash as it's a 4card straight on the board, and your set outs are also trash for the exact same reason.

I don't even necessarily give a fish credit for thinking through the decision that logically, but I absolutely agree that in this spot, where we're not repping anything and relying solely on our opponent not having the guts to call betting more will have a large impact on our fold equity. Of course, it has to work more often if you bet more as well.

I agree with the turn bluff, I think its an excellent play to increase results.

If i bluff the turn I AM %100 betting the river.

It's this or fold to the $50 turn bet. You decide.

If our read is that we can get him off most of his range then we must man up.


Pot is $500, there is no way I am getting to showdown with 88.

Hero bets $300

Hes getting 2.7:1

We just need him to fold %37 to break even.

Like the video ananysis states, his range consists of many hands that do not contain an Ace.

37% of the time to break even on the river. Of course the initial decision is on the turn so it's a fair deal more complicated than that.

I don't know how to work it out, and I suspect there's no definitive way, but for the sake of argument if we decide that we're raising to $150 on the turn, then firing $300 if called on the river, there are two scenarios. 2) we win on the turn, in which case it's risking $150 to win $250. 2) we'll be investing $450 in total ($150 on the turn + $300 on the river), not to win $500 as you state, but to win $350 ($250 in the pot when we raise on the turn, plus the $100 extra we get off villain if he calls, but not the $150 we put in on the turn because that is our money and not the pot's at the time of the initial decision).

How you go about weighing those dual scenarios in an EV calculation I have no idea.