Hey there,

in his book Janda recommends a 1:1,5 value to bluff ratio with regards to 3betting. However if we bluff 60% of the time, doesn't that mean that villain is ALWAYS getting the right odds to call the 3bet?

For example vs a EP raiser (15% open, e.g. say AJ+, KJ+, 55+, few SC) Janda suggests approx. to raise KK+, A5s, A4s for value and get it in on a 4bet and bluff KJo, KQo. This means that villain can basically call with his entire range & even will dominate us most of the time (e.g. w/AK, AQ, AJ) or has at least 50% equity (e.g. all PP). Basically he can call 100% & cr every A/K/Q board profitably...
Wouldn't it be wiser to just flat AJ/KQ as it still has good equity vs an 15% range and we're IP.

So arent we bluffing too much with a 1:1,5 ratio and shouldn't villain call 100% considering the odds he gets and our value:bluff ratio?

I have a question about defending checks. In AoNLH you say that we're to defend ~57% of our flop checks out of position, and while I find this realistic from UTG/MP/CO, I'm finding it really difficult to construct a flop check defending range after opening in the SB and the BB calls.

You also say that letting our opponent show an immediate profit with any two cards is likely not problematic since they had to risk money to see the flop.

However in the case of SB vs BB, the BB gets a discount on seeing the flop, so presumably our checks need to be defended more aggressively, which I find really hard when I'm opening ~50% from the SB.

Do you also see this difficulty defending flop checks when opening from the SB? How do you resolve it? I can only consider greatly reducing my SB opening range, which initially seems bad in itself, or is this why a SB limping strategy is utilised?

Thanks.

Since checking back will be profitable for every hand in the big blinds range you should allow him an immediate profit on a flop bluff.

@monshiach: where do you get that 57% from the book. i thought it was lower..something like 50% or so.

HI mat,

in this thread you adviced to use snowies preflop ranges instead of the ones you present in the book. I have played around with snowie and am wondering what you think of these two spots.

utg opens, snowie lets us 3bet AKo in the MP. Your ranges call with this hand. Which i personally like better.

mp opens, snowie lets us 3bet AKo,AQo in CO. Your ranges call with these hands. Which again, i like better cause you keep a lot of dominated hands in villains range.

really interested whats your opinion on this matter

I would definitely 3-bet all of them.

Unfortunately this is honestly the kind of stuff that needs to be answered in videos/articles/books etc, since the reason why isn't too simple and there are big advantages of calling. Long story short denying equity pre-flop is very important (which only 3-betting does) and getting squeezed sucks with AQo.

The BB will not defend enough to prevent villain from profitably betting any two cards since the BB's range is much weaker than the openers. This one isn't even close, it's fine to check-fold at a pretty high frequency even if the bet is only 1/2 pot or so.

CO vs BTN ranges are closer in strength so CO should be able to defend more of his checks.

Really the times you prevent an opponent from being able to profitably utilize any two cards is when he raises. If you bet $6 into a $12 pot and he raises to $18 on the flop, you need to defend in theory much more than 50% of the time or villain should never fold to a bet.

I'm not sure how the SB vs BB should look in theory, so I'll refrain from commenting on that one too much as my guess is it's pretty complex since you also likely have a limping range.

Pre-flop does not model well, so the pre-flop section in the book didn't age well. Unfortunately I think you are best off skipping the ranges in the book and looking at PokerSnowie.

I think like in a lot of spots in poker an optimal strategy will use many bet sizes with many mixed strategies. I think I've had this opinion for a while now.

I personally think the min-raise on the button is wayyyyyyy overused but it does work in many spots with many hands. The problem is lots of people min-raise every situation, even with antes.

Thank you

Hi, sorry if this has been asked before but I couldn't find anything. I have a question about the following equation on pg 99:

Minimum bluff success rate = (bet size in PSB) / (bet size in PSB + 1) or Y = X /(X + 1), where X is the bet size in terms of pot-sized bets, and Y is the frequency the bluff must succeed to show an immediate profit.

Doesn't Y represent the success rate needed (of the bluff) to break even?

You are correct. This formula gives the break even percentage.

What do you think of a strategy of only completing the small blind when alone in the pot with the big blind if we play our hand?

When might you use this strategy? When might you avoid this strategy?


Obviously some of the better high stakes players have been doing this on and off for a few years.

IMO, in many games you induce a raise when you limp and you often won't like it in holdem.

The BB is often not fighting back much when you open raise.

It might make sense to limp some with a couple of selected ranges for psychological reasons. And when vs a (very) passive player, limping with some semi-junk and folding hands.

.

.

I like limping in the SB.

I think it conceptually helps to look at what types of hands a 3x raise (or whatever you're raising in the SB) makes fold and then design the limping range. So imagine for example you think a 3x open makes K6o-K2o fold. Well, that's probably going to make me start consider limping K7o since now I'll keep more dominated hands in his range and it's less valuable to make those hands fold with K7o than it is with say 63s.

I think the reason to raise rather than limp in the SB is more of for exploitative reasons. People used to fold way, way too much in BB vs SB spots, but whether they still do now probably depends a lot on your game/stakes.

I probably use the terms "Your bluff needs to work X% to break even" and "Your bluff needs to work X% to show an immediate profit" interchangeably. You are technically correct that the formula is solving for the exact break even point so sorry about any confusion.

quick question about balanced river bluff freq. In your book you advice to have a value:bluff of 2:1 on the river. Is this because you assume a 1/2 pot sized river bet?

Is it correct that if we make a pot sized river bet. That a balanced value:bluff ratio is 1:1?

And if we bet 2 times pot, its around 1:2?

2:1 value:bluff assumes a pot-sized bet.
A pot-sized bet lays 2:1 odds on a call, and happily that's the same ratio of value:bluffs that you should aim for.
If you set calling odds of 3:2 (e.g. by making a 2x pot bet), you should have 3 value combos for every 2 bluffs (i.e. a 60%/40% split).

thanks! its clear now

Hey Matt,

Love your book, in fact it's one of my favorites. I wrote a blog about it, check it out here:

https://www.upswingpoker.com/best-po...-holdem-janda/

Hey Ryan,

Thank you for doing this and letting me know. I'm glad you enjoyed the book and I've always enjoyed your posts as well as your 6-max strat guide. Best of luck to you and the rest of Upswing Poker in 2017.

I believe that someone has already asked this and you have already answered, but I searched a lot and I did not find, I do not know how to use the search tool well, sorry
* Anyway, I did not find in the "Recommended Hand Chart" part of the 3bet BB vs SB range, what would it be?

some time later..