Quote:
Originally Posted by Laxalt
Can someone explain the 'why ever bluff?' question around the 12:20 minute mark in more detail? Still can't get my head around it.
Also, Doug says 'bluffing 33% can make the same money as bluffing 0%' yet if you look at his notes you see bluffing 0% (value betting 100%) makes you $100 if your opponent folds and $200 if your opponent calls which equals $300, yet bluffing 33% of the time makes you $100 if your opponent folds and $100 if your opponent folds which equals $200. So from my understanding, bluffing 0% makes you $100 more on average.
I'm fully expecting to be wrong here so could someone correct me?
Well, first, you can't add them together. A villain is either folding or calling, not both, so you can't make the money from both decisions. When both decisions are possible, we multiply the percentage of the time it happens by our expected value.
Next, in the bluff 0% scenario, the villain can always just fold, so you only make the 100% * 100 + 0% *$200 and this is just +$100.
Next, in the Bluff 33% example you lose $100 when called while bluffing but make $200 when called with value. So let's do the math again:
33.33% * -$100 + 66.67 * $200 and you'll see that this equals +100.
So, bluffing at the right frequency is the same as never bluffing.
Which comes to the second question: Why ever bluff if it is just as good to only value bet.
The reason is that because everytime you bet (either by vbetting or by bluffing) you win the pot ($100 here) if you're bluffing a balanced range. But, you'll get more opportunities to bet (and hence win the $100) if you have vbets and bluffs than if you just have vbets.
Hope that helps.