Originally posted by kavboj84
Ive gotta ask you a qestion. How much do I need to pay to catch a bluff ? And how much to make him indiferrent for bluffing ?
See Boomers fourth post.
Call the check-raise 78% and the donk 89%. In both cases EV = 0 (which is independent of the calling frequency), and you make him indifferent to bluffing with either bluff type (which does rely on the calling frequency).
/Johan = 
So when we get check/raised on the river, we loose money on the long term whatever we do, but when facing a donkbet we can make a BE call?
Nope. Provided you come into the river balanced, you have a break even call in both cases if you play against another balanced player.
Actually, "balancing" does not capture this in full. It is just us amateur's approximation to full GTO that is strictly required.
In reality, a check-raise OTR is bad news, while a donk doesn't mean much, but this is irrelevant for this thread.
Originally posted by YohanN7
Nope. Provided you come into the river balanced, you have a break even call in both cases if you play against another balanced player.
Actually you have a breakeven call frequency no matter how you get to the river. You may have played terribly on the previous streets, losing a lot of value, but villain can't force you to make further mistakes on the river, if you play the river optimally.
Originally posted by redskwerl
Originally posted by YohanN7
Nope. Provided you come into the river balanced, you have a break even call in both cases if you play against another balanced player.Actually you have a breakeven call frequency no matter how you get to the river. You may have played terribly on the previous streets, losing a lot of value, but villain can't force you to make further mistakes on the river, if you play the river optimally.
Yes you are right - provided you have at least one bluff catcher to use a certain percentage of the time. With nuts only you can't bluff catch (only reraise) and it can't be called a perfect equilibrium. By the way, I just wrote an essay Here. (I write too much, play too little:f_biggrin:)
By the way redskwrl, I'm thinking about using an external randomizer for bluffing and bluff-catching. The precision, I'm sure, would be much much better than trying to estimate "how high up in my range" I am at live speed whenever I hold a bluff or bluff-catcher candidate. A wrist watch would do. Where is the second hand when I look at it? This only versus unknowns on the river.
What do you think?
It doesn't matter what your range is at all. Let's say you fuck up really bad and only get to the river with the nut low hands. Your equity in the pot is zero. Villain bets. You can fold 100%. Villain is not exploiting you by making you fold your entire range, because you are expected to lose to pot anyways. Villain could check 100% and gain the same amount.
Originally posted by redskwerl
It doesn't matter what your range is at all. Let's say you fuck up really bad and only get to the river with the nut low hands. Your equity in the pot is zero. Villain bets. You can fold 100%. Villain is not exploiting you by making you fold your entire range, because you are expected to lose to pot anyways. Villain could check 100% and gain the same amount.
He can exploit me by checking his whole range luring me into bluffing the correct percentage whereupon he always calls. This is the mirror image of the imbalance with nuts only. There he exploits me by always check-folding. You need at least one bluff-catcher that is good for both bluffing and catching bluffs.
I think this is true if we know each others range. But do I know that he knows by range? Does he know that I know his range? If yes and yes, then perfect balance is back.
Originally posted by YohanN7
By the way redskwrl, I'm thinking about using an external randomizer for bluffing and bluff-catching. The precision, I'm sure, would be much much better than trying to estimate "how high up in my range" I am at live speed whenever I hold a bluff or bluff-catcher candidate. A wrist watch would do. Where is the second hand when I look at it? This only versus unknowns on the river.What do you think?
The precision of your calling/bluffing frequencies would improve for sure. In practice I think it will work okay for bluffing, but not so okay for bluffcatching.
Originally posted by YohanN7
He can exploit me by checking his whole range luring me into bluffing the correct percentage whereupon he always calls. This is the mirror image of the imbalance with nuts only. There he exploits me by always check-folding.
He can't exploit you by checking. You should never bet when he checks. You are guaranteed no money from the pot, and you get exactly that by checking behind. Your optimal betting frequency is 0%.
Yes, but that presupposes my addendum that you probably missed. (We were editing at the same time.) For clarity for future readers, her it is again:
I think this is true if we know each others range. But do I know that he knows by range? Does he know that I know his range? If yes and yes, then perfect balance is back.
For example, if I know his perfect range, but I am not aware that he knows mine, then I'd certainly bluff my nut lows once in a while when he checks.
Players only know their own range. You can't win more than 0 if villain plays correctly. Let's say you bet some % of the time (mistake!), instead of checking back and getting the guaranteed 0 EV. If villain calls the optimal percentage, you still win 0 on average and villain still wins pot on average. But if villain calls more than what's optimal for him, he is exploiting you, and you will "win" less than 0.
edit: Here I assume villain is playing GTO. If he isn't, it's a bit more complicated. For example it's possible he only goes to the river with the nuts, and so it's optimal for him to (at least) call your river bet 100%. In this case he would already be exploiting you by simply playing optimally on the river.
Originally posted by redskwerl
Players only know their own range. ...
Yes, that works too, it is balanced, but would be exploitable in the long run. Hands do go to showdown and he will see your 100% nut lows or 100% pure nuts. This is not an equilibrium by definition, because you can't continue playing a million years with the exact same ranges versus an adaptive opponent.
Interesting debate. I enjoy it.
EDIT: Addendum for a possible future reader. The context is balance on the river, and the last bet is all in. Here GTO = balance. At least the thread started out that way.
Yes, we probably lose a bunch of EV earlier in the hand if we only ever get to the river in a certain spot with the nut low. But if we optimize our play on the river, we don't lose any more value on that street.
But can you give me a math solution of how putting a 2BB into a total 10BB pot when 90% of the time we are losing, its gonna be BE somehow?
Yes, when you fold 22% of the time you are making him indiffrent to bluff, so he cant exploit us, but he still wins money from that situation nomatter what.
If the bluffer is BE when he bluffs, the bluff-catcher is BE too right?
This is tricky, but what's here ITT is correct (you have so sift out the right posts, ignore my first three or so before I saw the light).
If the bluffer is BE when he bluffs, the bluff-catcher is BE too right?
As you can see, thats not necesarry.♦ Thats only when we have to pay one BB on the street.
Hero is paying 2BB to win 10BB and he will lose 90% of the time. How this can be a BE call?
Im talking about the overall ranges. Yes, villain is BE with his 10% bluffs, but overall his range is crushing heros range, and thats why the best hero can do, is to lose the minimum, so hero has to fold 22%, otherwise hes losing more.
You get it all wrong. No offense, but I know from experience how long it takes (e.g. ITT) to convince anyone about how this works out. I'll not try (once again). I'll just say that your numbers are wrong. The bluffer loses less than 90%, otherwise the bluff-catcher calls too much and is thus exploitable. It's all ITT (Read Boomers posts in the beginning.)
Just to make sure; we are talking about kav's case 2 from the OP, right?
i don't understand the exact situation you're talking about, but in general your EV can't be negative for any postflop call/fold decision. you can always fold and guarantee 0 EV at least.
The situation it ought to be is outlined clearly in kav's OP (case 2). Everything else should really move to another thread - else it would be utterly confusing.
