I know the GTO concept that one is supposed to use the same bluff to value ratio as the pot odds you are offering to the opponent.

I've recently come to find out that Ed Miller and others have put forth the concept that if this number is 30% on a 3/4pot bet at the river, and that you should work backwards and value bet .7*.7= 49% on the turn and .49*.7= 34.3% on the flop. This way, you can be properly balanced.

The question is: say flop is T97 and there is no range advantage. I have 2 top and bottom 2 pr or better almost 30% of time with a 50% range according to my calculations. If I bet only those hands for value on the flop, my bluff range would work out to x/.30=.657/.343 ; x=0.57

This would dictate that I bluff with 57% of my range, which is clearly impossible given only 50% of my range is behind his This comes to 41% of my range as bluffs if I am only betting half pot throughout. I must be missing something here. help!?

My thought is to take the average hand in the continuing range of the villian, then base bluffs on that. For example, I'm betting half pot on flop KQ6 and my value range is 20% sets and 2 pr. I will guess that he continues with 60% of the time and I bluff my hands in the range of 31-72% of the equity curve of propokertools, the 41% listed above.

This is probably wrong too, but it seems that this general concept does not apply to PLO at all or I'm just bungling it up.

I'm not sure exactly what you mean here, but my guess is if you start with a nonsense pre-flop range then you're going to run into post-flop issues.

From working with a solver, I can conclude that it’s not as black and white as an exact frequency all the time. We’re range betting a lot with range advantage, especially in position with higher SPRs.

On the flip side, if the other player has range advantage we’re rarely betting let alone bluffing.

I used to make the error of always defending at least x amount v each bet sizing (which seems logical from a purely mathematical standpoint) but the maths alone doesn’t take into account things like range advantage, nut advantage, equity realisation etc.

In some spots it’s right to overbluff and underfold. In others the opposite is true.

Thanks for the thoughtful response, Andy. I realize defending MDF is not taking into account equity realization, but I don't see how you can use the Ed Miller formula without checking a bunch of monsters on wet flops. I guess you could also bet 1/3 pot on a T97 board and value bet 20% and bluff cbet the 18% of the equity curve where, according to ppt, you have at worst 20% equity on the turn. Then, you are pricing in all pairs with a gutshot which is probably a good thing

From a solver perspective, it’s a board it bets really big or really small so that makes a lot of sense in terms of your range against theirs

On super wet textures- I tend to have a 10-25% pot sizing and a near pot/ overbet one.

If you bet really big on T97, I guess you don't worry about balance in that case (cause most ppl don't notice that you are only doing that with the nuts ?)

My big idea is that it is good to cbet a bluff heavy polarized range to protect my checkback range for deception and so I don't get donked when I check flop. I feel like so few low limit players check raise at all, so why not?

I’d make it quite polar- so blockers/ straight draws mixed with sets and straights.

On the smaller sizes, I’m likely to bet most pair plus draw, pair plus backdoor and some pure air.

I’m still getting the ropes myself but I tend to base which strategy I use on the opponent- I feel like regs are more likely to make errors v a tiny bet sizing and fish are more likely against a bigger one.

It’s also ok to have folds against the turn probe with pure air like A5s, I’m happy to give up a lot of whiffs on a flop like this.

Ok, I found the sore spot in my analysis. I was using "hand v hand" analysis in ppt to find hands on the equity curve for a bluffing range and wondering why I was expected to bluff horrendous hands. Well, it turns out hand v hand uncovers the villians cards on the turn even though only the range is in the query, while hand v range is the proper way to analyze this.

Don't make the mistake that I did, kids.