The problem is "value" 3bets do have FE too. And "bluff" 3bets do have raw equity too. If your raise relies too much on making the opponent fold, well, either you are in an autoprofit spot so much he fold to 3bet, or you are attempting a poor bluffraise. That's all. And that doesn't save the good old value/bluff distinction as in "your action must be made either for value or for bluff". Bullshit. As Janda himself corrected later. As Snowie and solvers' use shows every day. As great players illustrate with their splitting choice. Etc.
Notifications
Clear all
Chinese proverb : Give a HUD to a man, he'll exploit one day, but teach him to use a tracker... and he'll complain about his AIEV all his life 
"Si debis pedere, pedis superbe. (If you must fart, fart proudly)" VorpalF2F
Having fold equity doesn't mean it wasn't for value and having raw equity doesn't mean it wasn't a bluff.A case in point being an auto profit 3bet spot where you can 3bet 72o it should be clear it's a bluff to maximize ev with the fold equity.Or betting the river with the nuts your bet gives you fold equity but it should still be clear your bet is for value.
This is all about decisions. And if you take the one with the biggest EV value, you'll win. That's the only thing we know for sure about this game. There are even occasions where every possible decision you can make has a negative EV value. Still, there's one that holds the less negative value, if we can call it that way.
Well, if finding that decision was piece of cake, everybody would be able to win. I think you know what happens in reality, don't you? 
Originally posted by SacredCow
Having fold equity doesn't mean it wasn't for value and having raw equity doesn't mean it wasn't a bluff.A case in point being an auto profit 3bet spot where you can 3bet 72o it should be clear it's a bluff to maximize ev with the fold equity.Or betting the river with the nuts your bet gives you fold equity but it should still be clear your bet is for value.
Dude, are you being serious ? You took the very two extreme examples (preflop autoprofit and river when all equities are determined) that I took myself as not being the point...
You still don't seem to understand and I don't know how to be clearer lol. Read Janda's last book.
Chinese proverb : Give a HUD to a man, he'll exploit one day, but teach him to use a tracker... and he'll complain about his AIEV all his life
"Si debis pedere, pedis superbe. (If you must fart, fart proudly)" VorpalF2F
Originally posted by MyFloXyBabY
Originally posted by SacredCow
Having fold equity doesn't mean it wasn't for value and having raw equity doesn't mean it wasn't a bluff as the hand relies on fold equity and raw equity.A case in point being an auto profit 3bet spot where you can 3bet 72o it should be clear it's a bluff to maximize ev with the fold equity to be a profitable play.Or betting the river with the nuts your bet gives you fold equity but it should still be clear your bet is for value.Dude, are you being serious ? You took the very two extreme examples (preflop autoprofit and river when all equities are determined) that I took myself as not being the point...
You still don't seem to understand and I don't know how to be clearer lol. Read Janda's last book.
I would just consider a semi bluff to be a hand that relies on both fold equity and raw equity like 3betting say 65s. And 3betting a hand like AA that doesn't rely on any preflop fold equity as value but then i'm very old school in my thinking still.Ill read that book my game could certainly do with brushing up on.
I didn't read the full thread but that discussion about value and bluff 3bets got me interested. It indeed seems to be kinda old school way of thinking. Nowadays our 3betting ranges probably are not perfectly polarized, meaning our bluffs would have 0% equity and value bets 100% equity? And they probably shouldn't be in many cases? We just 3bet the hands that work as a 3bet and it is sometimes hard to categorize them. Right?
I think MyFloXyBabY has even better insight to this topic than I do. I have read the book he mentioned but just quite quickly. I should read it again 
Originally posted by la55i
I didn't read the full thread but that discussion about value and bluff 3bets got me interested. It indeed seems to be kinda old school way of thinking. Nowadays our 3betting ranges probably are not perfectly polarized, meaning our bluffs would have 0% equity and value bets 100% equity? And they probably shouldn't be in many cases? We just 3bet the hands that work as a 3bet and it is sometimes hard to categorize them. Right?
I think MyFloXyBabY has even better insight to this topic than I do. I have read the book he mentioned but just quite quickly. I should read it againThe way I would typically look at it rightly or wrongly would be to classify a 3bet bluff as a hand that almost entirely relies upon fold equity because of it's bad playability postflop . But as MyFloXyBabY correctly points out even the worst hands have raw equity albeit (bad playability).Then I would classify hands that do not rely on fold equity as value albeit the action of 3betting does generate fold equity it is not the reason for 3betting.Then I would classify semi bluffs as hands that rely on a mixture of raw equity and fold equity to make a profit. So in essence I would classify K2o a pure 3bet bluff AA pure value and 65s a semi bluff.
Also how does it affect the way we view hands postflop does raising the nuts on the flop or turn now become a semi bluff because the outcome of the hand isn't yet determined. Ill have to get my head stuck back in the books to see what's what. But it seems to muddy the water quite a bit not classifying hands into a particular category and classing them all instead as semi bluffs.
So you use a category "semibluff" for pre 3bets. That basically means you know some hands you 3bet can not accurately be placed in one category or the other. Then the question is, do we really have to categorize them?
Originally posted by la55i
So you use a category "semibluff" for pre 3bets. That basically means you know some hands you 3bet can not accurately be placed in one category or the other. Then the question is, do we really have to categorize them?
That's why they have their own catargory. A semi bluff is somewhat indifferent to whether villain calls or folds where as some hands k2o ideally want to generate 100% folds where as others AA don't rely on any fold equity whatsoever. I mean for the sake of discussion it helps to know our reasoning behind a certain action. Having a one size fits all category seems a bit strange.
I guess it does put premium hands like AK into semi bluff territory though 
Also how do you then define postflop actions ? is a raise on the flop or turn with the nuts a value raise or semi bluff ?.It's essentially the same thing as 3betting AA preflop your just charging hands to draw for value. Are we basically saying any action is a semi bluff until the outcome is determined.
If you get too little fold equity when 3betting or 4betting, you should not use polarized range because your bluff hands need solid equity / playability to have +EV 3bet/4bet. So you extend your value range, and use bluffs that are having better playability/equity vs villain defend range. E.g. when 3betting BB vs BU, don't 3bet hand like 72s, but rather suited aces, broadways etc. Similar for 4bet, don't use A5o and similar that have good blocker effect but horrible playability postflop when get called, but rather use also suited aces, broadways. You can also increase your 3bet/4bet size. E.g. when 4betting, if you 4bet 3x or even 3.5x and they still defend the same range, you get more value with value hands, but if they overfold you can bluff them more, and if they start defending with aggressive 5bet, you can use hands to bluff that have good blocker effect like A5o.