I still think that you dont understand what im trying to say, but doesnt matter:)
Notifications
Clear all
I guess the issue is this: When you bluff-catch in a balanced way, the frequency with which you do it should be according to the opponents investment in the bluff in relation to the size of the pot.
In the case when the bluffer bets out and the bluff-catcher calls, this is simple. It translates to the pot odds.
It is different when the bluffer check-raises as a bluff. His investment is twice as much. People tend to think that they should bluff-catch according to what the pot is giving them in odds for the call of the check-raise. This is wrong. They should call less (roughly half compared to versus a simple bet).
Equally confusing for some is that (in the second case) since the pot gives so great odds, they think they should call the check-raise as usual versus a simple bet (and thereby gain),. Well, assuming the bluffer is balanced (he is actually bluffing with a frequency according to the pot odds given to the caller of the check-raise), they can call 0%, the correct percentage, or 100%. It doesn't matter. It is zero EV for bluff-catching whatever they do when they have a bluff-catching hand.
What matters is that if they deviate from the correct frequency, they are exploitable. This has been the issue of this thread. The setting is outlined nicely in kav's first post.
(Oops, now I got involved in this again against my intentions.:))
Originally posted by faktor1
I still think that you dont understand what im trying to say, but doesnt matter:)
No, I don't. Are you talking about kav's case #2?
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.
In case1 when we are facing a donk bet, we have 0EV when we fold the bottom 10-11% of our range, right?
And here kavboj did very good math about that -
Boomer says, that in case #1 when he donks I have 9:1 for calling so he has to bluff 10% of his range in order to be balanced, and thats why he has 9 value hand ( 6x AA and 3x KK) and one bluff hand (J7o), and because he bets 1 to 8 I should fold around bottom11-12% of my range, hence I fold one of the JJ-s and call with the rest. So in average I loose the 9 bets against his value range ,but in every tenth time I catch his bluff and then I win 10, resulting my EV at 0.
And can you give such kind of solution when we are facing checkraise? How you are gonna make it 0EV for you to blufcatch?
Whatever you do, don't trust kavbojs math. Trust Boomer's math and mine. I don't know if kavboj ever understood this. Let us skip case 1 when facing a donk (that one is not a problem).
Let's take this in small steps.
Do you agree with the following:
Whenever you are in a situation with a bluff catcher facing an opponent who bluffs in a balanced way, it doesn't matter what you do. When you face the check-raise, it doesn't matter if you call or fold. You can call 0%, 100% or anything in between. In the long run, you will break even.
?
When you are facing checkraise on the river from a balanced player you are fucked up. The best you can do is to try lose the minimum. But when you are facing donk from a balanced player, you can make a BE call and i gave a math solution above. I wont from you to give me similiar solution, but when we face checkraise.
And yes, i agree fully with you.
Originally posted by faktor1
When you are facing checkraise on the river from a balanced player you are fucked up. The best you can do is to try lose the minimum.
If you fold to the checkraise 100%, you lose 0. You want to lose less than 0?
Originally posted by faktor1
When you are facing checkraise on the river from a balanced player you are fucked up. The best you can do is to try lose the minimum.
If you call the checkraise 100%, you win 0. Do you want to win more than 0?
Originally posted by faktor1
If you fold 100% you are loosing the bet youve already put in.
that is true, you lose all equity you had in the pot. but you can't not put that bet it, it's already in the pot. the EV of your current decision is 0
Yes, the current decision is 0. Im talking overall in the hand, that when we face checkraise OVERALL we lose money, but when face a donkbet we still can make BE OVERALL play.
Originally posted by faktor1
Yes, the current decision is 0. Im talking overall in the hand, that when we face checkraise OVERALL we lose money, but when face a donkbet we still can make BE OVERALL play.
ok now i understand what you're saying, but you're wrong. how do you know you are breaking even whenever villain makes a donkbet in the hand? that's definitely not even remotely true
Originally posted by faktor1
If you fold 100% you are loosing the bet youve already put in.
Actually, that bet is "lost" even if you call 100%. It's part of the contested pot, as is the bluffers 2BB he check-raised with. That was a value bet in the context of this thread. See the hand as a whole.
And, yes, you are always losing 1 bet on the river (on average) in the check-raise case. Is that the whole issue?
Originally posted by YohanN7
And, yes, you are always losing 1 bet on the river (on average) in the check-raise case. Is that the whole issue?
That's only true if you have no equity in the pot.
The whole issue was that you didnt understand me from the begining and then we start this stupid discussion...♦:facepalm::facepalm:
Originally posted by redskwerl
Originally posted by YohanN7
And, yes, you are always losing 1 bet on the river (on average) in the check-raise case. Is that the whole issue?That's only true if you have no equity in the pot.
I meant of course when you hold the bluff catcher facing the check-raise. See OP where the scenario is.
Originally posted by faktor1
The whole issue was that you didnt understand me from the begining and then we start this stupid discussion...♦:facepalm::facepalm:
I thought you knew that you can't regret bets in poker. (Damned, where is the unbet button?)
That is akin to actually believing the big blind is YOURS once you posted it.
Originally posted by faktor1
The whole issue was that you didnt understand me from the begining and then we start this stupid discussion...♦:facepalm::facepalm:
we didn't understand, because what you said wasn't true