Trying to look into this a bit more and get my grasp on the topic more supported by math rather than just doing what I 'think' is right. Going to say some things that I have told hold generally true...

- We need a ratio of 2:1 bluff:value on the flop.

- We need a ratio of 1:1 bluff:value on the turn.

- We need a ratio of 1:2 bluff: value on the river.

I'm sorta having trouble getting these exact ratios though. I'm starting with one of the easiest examples - I raise UTG with a range of (22+, A2s+, KJs+, QJs, JTs, T9s, 98s, AJo+, KQo - 166 combos of hands). Flop comes A72r.

Now take a look at the below picture that show what we have.



So, many many combos of top pair, some 2 pair and sets, and very little 'nothing'. Which is to be expected as that board hits our range nicely.

Only betting AQ and up, we get 37 value combos (AQs+, AQo+, A7s, A2s, AA, 77, 22) meaning we need 74 bluffs, which can come from (99-88, 66-33, KJs+, QJs, JTs, T9s, 98s, KQo).

This means our checking range is: KK-TT, AJo, AJs-A8s, A6s-A3s, which gives us 57 combos that we check. We need to fold about 20 of them, which would be: QQ-TT (18 combos, close enough).

On paper at least, this looks 'balanced'. But a couple of things just feel a bit...wrong I guess.

For a start, check-folding QQ to a single flop bet feels extremely weaktight. Secondly, only betting our Ax combinations of AQ and above feels nitty. Lastly, if we're using small pocket pairs to bluff, we're bluffing with very little equity and no blockers there (if pocket 3's-6's are called, we're drawing to 2 outs usually, and they block no Ax hands that villain could have reasonably called with that will form a large part of his continuing range).

So I guess what I'm asking is...in this example, does it matter that our bluffing hands are pretty crap and we're folding some decent second pair hands, since we're still balanced and at the end of the day, QQ isn't really a great hand anymore on an Axx board when we have loads of Ax? Does it matter that we're not betting AJ for value? I couldn't see a way to squeeze it in without having not enough bluffs in my betting range.

XC: AA cuz the blockers.

Betting TT-88 (JJ mayb too) isn't exactly bluff in this scenario, but more of going for 1 street value.

Don't bluff KJ QJ JT etc without backdoors.

And as we see, this board hit's our range hard, we prob should bet smaller as we don't have that many bluffz + V has hard time defending vs against 50%PSB + our XC range is stronk. And when we are betting smaller we can prob move AJ into betting range.

A72r is a really bad board for bluff cbetting, since no ace or 7 is folding and KQ/89 type hands are way behind both of those. I personally wouldn't put effort into having a balanced range on boards like that.

I would always bet AJ and ATs and it would never be some weak ass half pot bet. I would only check A2-5s and KK on that flop vs one player that's not a station.

Right, that's cool, and I have been doing the same (although I also check A6-A9s apart from A7s, but that's not a big deal).

But how do you balance it with the appropriate amount of bluffs. If we add AJ/AJo to the betting range, we have 49 combos of value, not 37. Meaning we need approximately another 24 bluffs and I'm just not seeing where they're coming from, our bluffing hands are pretty limited.

If you look at the screenshot that shows what hands we have on this flop, we really can't afford to be that picky about backdoors since our bluffs are so limited.

Plus I do imagine cbetting an ace high dry flop with JT with no backdoors as the UTG PFR is +EV even if you never ever win the pot when called simply because they'll fold a lot.

Don't think you should raise A6s-A9s from utg, not sure about A2s-A5s.

The 2-1 ratio is only for value bets that can go for 3 streets. That would be no less than AK, 2pairs and sets. I'm not actually sure we can bluff 2 combos for each AK combo given we probably can't go for 3 streets on some run outs and our bluffs have crap equity.

1-1 ratio -> 2 streets
1-2 ratio -> 1 street (if we bet ~pot)

Oh, right...didn't know that.

So how do we balance bearing in mind the fact some hands want 3 streets and some hands 2 streets? Given that sometimes for 2 streets we want to bet flop and turn and check river?

Or should we bet flop with all value hands that we want 3 streets out of plus bluffs (that we plan to discard some of on the turn and river), and check every hand that we only want 2 streets from? Normally with something like AJ, I'd bet flop and turn, probably check/fold river unimproved.

I'm not sure I get the question. And it doesn't really matter what streets we bet, except we can bluff less on the river because our bluffs have 0 equity. So we can have slightly more bluffs if we bet flop + turn instead of flop + river.

From what I've seen in janda's book, he likes to have a really polarized betting range and put most of the weaker value bets in the checking range. He's cbetting a lot less frequently than what people tend to and he's defending his checks a lot.

What I mean is, let's say we have our '3 street hands', which we'll define at this point as all sets/2 pairs and AK. That's 25 combos of hands, so we need 50 bluffs which is relatively easy.

But let's say we want to bet AQ OTF too, which would be a '2 street hand'. If we include the 12 combos of AQ as well, should we only add in 12 more bluffs OTF, as we've defined AQ as a 2 street hand rather than a 3 or 1 street hand?

So for instance, the above betting range (AQ+, AA,77,22, A7s, A2s) would be 37 value hands, of which we have 62 bluffs for balance (25*2 bluffs for the 3 street hands, and 12*1 bluffs for the 2 street hand of AQ). Does that sound right?

I've not read Janda yet, though do need to get round to it.

Question on the side: what program is that on the screenshot?

yes

Equilab.

Cheers, going to take another look at it now then.

It makes no sense to use 99-33 as a bluff and check-fold QQ-TT.

I don't have those hands in my UTG range or 22-66. I'm really tight from the first two or three positions. I still run really LAG though usually because I own the late positions and the blinds.

You mean blinds and utg or utg, mp and co? Because playing tight from co would be bad.

I think your x/c range is kind of weak, you could x/c AA and x/r 22 more some bluffs

Yeah IP we can bet AJ and AT for 2 streets, OOP betting them for example UTGvBtn, is fairly big mistake IMO. And about the weak-ass half pot bets, do you think it's a good decision to bet big on boards like this to actually give V easy decisions to make and to manipulate V's often inelastic range to actually make correct decisions.

From a theory standpoint, we should bet smaller when we don't have enough bluffs.

A good explotative play, especially when we make the bet a bit smaller than the standard 75%PSB, as V should then be defending way wider than they often think.

The doctor knows what he's talking about