Übertight fold

I tried and I still see the same: You think that you have 100 combos and 20 of them are bluffs then you have 20% bluffs, and this is the fist part where your thinking gets flawed IMO. There is no such thing as a pure bluff. If you have 10/100 bluff:total combos with 30% equity when bluffing you still only have 7 % bluffs in your range, despite that 10% are bluffs measured in #of combos. The same is true for the range you asssigned to MP. It is way too strong because it bluffs with too much equity. Dont measure bluffs in #of combos, rather in equity vs the worst calling hand in your opponents range.

As I see most people think that the goal of bluffing is to make your opponent fold, but it isnt so, the purpose of bluffing is to make your opponent indifferent between his options for calling and folding so that you force him to pay off your value range. If your opponent can overfold at some point you are not bluffing enough, what ever # of bluff combos you may have.

Also to your assumptions about your opponents ranges: after a few hundred hands you cant make such reads on which you can rely in decisions that need the least amount of precision. What do you know about your opponents turn c-bet tendencies? Does he check with nut hands on the flop or on the turn ? Does he 2 barrel his entire range or just bluffs ? Does he donk x/r ? Is the fish a peelmonkey or a fit or fold guy ? Does he slowplay ? If yes does he slowplay on dry boards and in HU pot or in MW ? IP/OP ? Does he delay until the river or he steps on the gas pedal on the turn when he has something ? There are players with 0.5-1 AF who barrel 99/99/99 with initiative no matter what, there are who c-bet 30% but its still bluffheavy, there are players with 80% turn c-bet who dont bluff enough because they bet with a condensed range, and you just simply cant figure these things out in a few hundred hands. There is a chance for each option after 100 hands, even if you observe them 1 by 1.

If you fold preemtively its your decision but you wont convince me about the correctness of it without real evidence, and for that you need at least 50-100 hands sample size from similar situations (i.e. turn c-bet multiway OOP in a tight range situation)

I haven't noticed this reply of yours before now. First of all, don't tell me what I think. I am using established terminology and call a combo that rates to be beaten a bluff whether it has equity or not. Your 7% bluff is just silly. The value part of the range has a bluff component as well. You also don't seem to understand the frequency with which you should bluff 3-ways (and bluff catch) - even in the one-street situations.

The goal of bluffing is to make people fold. That indifference stuff you can leave to the time when you play versus robots or really good high stakes players. Winning the most money possible is the goal, not "not losing".

Also don't try to educate me on what I can extract from statistics. I can tell a calling station from the first showdown I see. 50-100 hands is plenty enough to recognize a LAG, with or without showdowns. I might not get rare statistics right. But, you must go on the information you have. Now for an important point which you repeatedly have gotten backwards ITT. If you replace the aggro and the fish with players with more normal tendencies, then things get worse, not better for u.

What you call "folding preemptively" is folding a hand that can't beat even another king. The evidence is that your equity doesn't motivate a call based on any reasonable bluffing frequency on part of your two opponents. What you call "evidence" is, on the other hand not evidence. If you would find any deviation from what I tell you here and now (which you will not), then that would be just a freak coincidence.

There are better spots to bluff catch.

Sorry for the harsh tone kav. I just find it so frustrating to discuss with you because you have never admitted being wrong in logic-related discussions even if you have been completely off the wall.

Perhaps this line of argument can point you in the right direction. You put priority on balance. This shines through in your posts. the term "overfolding" is something that appears in every other post of yours.

Yes, we'll be folding much on this turn. The thing is this:

• We have shitty equity (that $50 offer is open for reasonable ranges against which you have a +EV call)
• One-street balance may dictate that you shouldn't fold (doubt it)
• GTO is not the same as "balanced". "Balanced" is just a model, and a crude one at that. It makes no distinction between board textures.
• GTO never goes much against the optimal EV. GTO dictates a fold here since EV does, and does so clearly.

I think it is pretty stupid and harmful to actually call to maintain what one believes is an unexploitable folding frequency because the right thing to do varies from board texture to board texture.

Edit: And, oh, if you demand proof according to what you think constitutes a proof, then you would actually ask me to prove that a fair die will give a 6 with probability 1/6 by actually throwing that die. The outcome of such an experiment is useless in case the die actually is fair.