Standard 3barrel Spots

I quite disagree
Paired T tests in a real environment provides a solid empirical evidence.
You could quite easily run a model with identical hands as well
Perhaps on snowie or other similar tool


Later adds...
Don't get me wrong, I don't disagree with the OP's premise.
I have been bluffing all week, so I can provide observational and anecdotal evidence
In the real world lots of people are building better bots and the best way to improve them is testing in the real world.

It seems to me that you are talking about running a bot who is playing vs other bots and letting 2 bots play identical set of hands? how is that going to help you to realize if you 3 barrel bluffs are profitable vs human population in real poker?

In the real world lots of people are building better bots and the best way to improve them is testing in the real world.

So you are building bots ?

No

It seems to me that you are talking about running a bot who is playing vs other bots and letting 2 bots play identical set of hands? how is that going to help you to realize if you 3 barrel bluffs are profitable vs human population in real poker?

imo this is valid

So you are building bots ? :)[/

I am a micro bot with human failings

As I mentioned this does not really show that 3-barreling is profitable, but does indicate that we are generating auto-profit specifically when we fire that third barrel on the river imo.

Either a hand goes to showdown or it does not. If it goes to showdown less often than it goes to showdown we should have auto-profit since the fold-equity threshold is 40%. Looking at the different amounts of flat sections on both lines we should be able to deduce that villain is folding enough that we make auto-profit. Clearly more hands are not-going to showdown than are going to showdown imo.

Also feel free to compare 3barrel winrate with bet/bet/check*any filter

As I mentioned this does not really show that 3-barreling is profitable, but does indicate that we are generating auto-profit specifically when we fire that third barrel on the river imo.

Hi, can you please explain, how did you come to the conclusion by looking only at the graph, that a 3rd barrel is generating auto-profit? As I can see, graph is only showing how much did you win with showdown and how much without. It doesnt show you the fold equity you had with bluffs. Having a high positive red line, doenst mean that we have auto-profit. You could have only 10% FE, and thus red line is positive since you mostly dont fold when you bet, but it could be that you are bluffing e.g. 45% of the time, so that blue line is not great and similar to red. Understood what I mean?

By the way I am not trying to prove you wrong, but if your method is correct, then it is simpler than building a filter for 3 barrel bluff success (ok I make it once and reuse, but still I could learn something here if you explain it, I like understanding things before using and your approach looks incorrect to me).

look at the flat areas on the blue line and the red line.

If we ignore river raises for a minute, the flat area on the blue line means our bluff worked. The flat area on the red line means our bluff didn't work and we went to showdown. Does it not seem to you that there are more flat areas on the blue-line than the red-line? We should be able to make a visual estimate of our fold-equity here. (It's got nothing to do with the red line consistently going up, I agree that it will rarely go down)

What we can infer from the graph is that we are making profit overall by firing and that the majority of the pots are not going to showdown. Deduction =D

Originally posted by w34z3l
look at the flat areas on the blue line and the red line.

If we ignore river raises for a minute, the flat area on the blue line means our bluff worked. The flat area on the red line means our bluff didn't work and we went to showdown. Does it not seem to you that there are more flat areas on the blue-line than the red-line? We should be able to make a visual estimate of our fold-equity here. (It's got nothing to do with the red line consistently going up, I agree that it will rarely go down)

What we can infer from the graph is that we are making profit overall by firing and that the majority of the pots are not going to showdown. Deduction =D

ok now i get what you mean by line segments
There are quite a lot of flat segments, switching whole time, and I agree that on your graph it does look like there is a lot of FE. Still I find that approach quite approximative and imprecise, which could be especially problematic if there are more hands and FE closer to 40%. I for example use sometimes overbet, sometimes underbet, sometimes 75%, so from graph it would be impossible to conclude if I have autoprofit, since really many of my 3rd barrels are big overbets (off course I could add filter for bet sizes, but then it goes into fitler direction). I like more filter for 3 barrel bluff success since it precisely shows how profitable bluffs are

I agree, much easier to use notecaddy or HM2 alias to look at average fold-to-river-cbet stat. With aliases we could also filter by sizing on river.

The post was really designed for lower limits where it seems to me so obvious that we have enough Feq that it doesn't matter if the graph is a little imprecise. But a different method is required for higher limits such as the above.

Originally posted by w34z3l
I agree, much easier to use notecaddy or HM2 alias to look at average fold-to-river-cbet stat. With aliases we could also filter by sizing on river.

The post was really designed for lower limits where it seems to me so obvious that we have enough Feq that it doesn't matter if the graph is a little imprecise. But a different method is required for higher limits such as the above.

I guess those filters could be created once and exported / imported, so that your students can reused them, or at least some short tutorial how to do it (I guess it is easier even for beginners to look at those imported custom stats / filters than to look at the graph).

You are right, that is a great suggestion and currently one of my long list of projects =D

Admist working on a complete set of preflop ranges with power equilab, a HUD + a whole bunch notecaddy custom stats, and a whole range of other projects, I am also going to make a list of filters available for download to help analysis with HM2.

Originally posted by w34z3l
You are right, that is a great suggestion and currently one of my long list of projects =D

Admist working on a complete set of preflop ranges with power equilab, a HUD + a whole bunch notecaddy custom stats, and a whole range of other projects, I am also going to make a list of filters available for download to help analysis with HM2.

Great, good luck with that.

By the way, I have a question regarding notecaddy. I think that bluff frequencies are very useful for poker, but are very misleading. I would use bluff frequencies only for spots where showdown is saw (e.g. bet F, bet T, bet R and river got called, so how often is R a bluff). I think that for spots like cbet flop, bluff frequency is misleading, because we can conclude if a hand is a bluff only after seeing a showdown, and bluffs on flop usually dont see a showdown, many of them are cf turn or river (value hands see more often showdown). So I think for such spots where we dont see showdown, it bluff frequencies are misleading, and perhaps it helps to look at how often a player won a hand after cbetting a flop, to conclude his bluff frequency (if somebody wins with high frequency a hand after cbetting flop, then it is very likely that he is value heavy on flop. This could also mean that villians are in average folding a lot though, but I think it is more precise than bluff frequencies). What do you think?
Also for notecaddy most detailed stats, there is a need for a huge sample, and I am not sure if even with huge sample those stats are relevant, since players are changing strategy over time. Thats why I am doubting in notecaddy usage.

I don't understand

If we make roughly 2/3rds pot on the river our bluff only needs to work 40% of the time.

how can you think only about 40% on the river when you are planning 3-barelling in the first place.
Shouldn't you put money in the pot on flop and turn and then you are counting that money as a winning prize? why?
If we surely know that opponent wont fold on our flop bet, wont fold on our turn bet and 40% folds on the river, should we add up all we are going to put?

Yeah I'm personally hazy on multi - street math in terms of fold %needed

I think the expression "standard 3 barrel" may be a bit of a misnomer.