# Misapplying minimum fold equity

• NL BSS
• NL BSS
• Shorthanded

Free membership

## Description

lnternet puts the concept of "Autoprofit" to determine your own defending Range to a test and ends up with a surprising conclusion.

## Tags

• #1

lnternet is back!

If you have any questions or feedback, please leave them below.

Enjoy!
• #2

Preflop Math 1: http://www.pokerstrategy.com/video/26219/
Poker School 2.0: Game Plan(5) http://www.pokerstrategy.com/strategy/bss/2314/1
• #3

nach den 4 minuten: das erste mal, dass ich es bereue die paar SP für blackmember nicht erspielt zu haben.
• #4

wieso genau ist es das beste outcome für uns wenn bb in dem 4betpot beispiel 100% am flop foldet?
• #5

assymetric ^^
• #6

link to "In the last Video" ?
• #7

I didn't understand the overall conclusion of the video. Option a) or option b)?

a) We should never look at minimum FE when designing call-down strategies.

b) In some cases (assymetric ranges and inherent disadvantage for example) the minimum FE is useless to design call-down strategies.

I understood your examples. But, let's say the CO opens and we flat on the BU and he makes a pot-size cbet on the flop. Do you mean we shouln't care about denying him an autoprofit situation when designing our call-down strategy?

Thanks!
• #8

#4 Weil, eine Strategie die BB profitabel weiter spielen laesst, fuer den BB mehr EV hat, als zu folden. Also ist es fuer uns am besten, wenn er immer foldet

#6 see #2

#7, Yes, the autoprofit calculation is completely useless for finding a strong call down strategy, even in that situation.
• #9

This video made me feel better about my game because for the longest time I thought I was x/f too much on certain boards that favor my opponents range but I knew I was on to something :)
• #10

what's a more appropriate method then?

For me I'm using Min Fold equity mostly as a guideline and mostly in spots where ranges are both very wide (extreme examples you offered seem to be mostly in spots where ranges are really narrow).

Next I compare equities of both ranges on the particular board. Then I look at board texture (volatile or non-volatile) and I come up with some arbitrary number for defending on the Flop.
• #11

#10 I have exactly the same question because I construct ranges the same way as you...

In the article of call-down frequencies they talk about that, but in a very generic way: we don't get specific answers (call more if X, call less if y, but how much more or less?). But there is an interesting Ev realisation calculation which seems to demonstrate that the EV of your specific hand is what matters the most...
• #12

#10,#11 that's about the best I can do as well.

Unfortunately the best answer for which hands you should continue, is:

Continue all hands for which it is highest EV to do so.

Using MDF as a guideline for loose ranges doesn't work, as you can see for instance in the MOP toy game with wide ranges, where you only defend a pot size bet 44%.
• #13

The indifference principle is still useful though, but it has to be applied correctly.

Instead of making villain zero EV to bluff (like defending 50% to a pot sized bet), you need to make villain's cutoff bluff hand indifferent between checking and betting.

For instance, villain's cutoff bluff hand may be a 1-overcard hand. That may have a check EV of 15% of the pot. So to play correctly, you need to defend in a way that his EV of a bet is also 15% of the pot. Otherwise he could bluff less or more than his cutoff bluff hand and show a greater overall profit.
• #14

http://www.pokerstrategy.com/video/26219/
• #15

good video, haven't checked out any kind of poker-education videos lately and I really like the visual presentation.

Making it a little bit longer, and SLOWER and having more "conclusions" what this 'should' mean for actual play would be awesome cause the pace of the delivery is a lil headasplode
• #16

on the 4:50 you say that making big blind fold 100% of time is the best result CO can achieve. I don't understand why is that. For me it's obvious that since we dominate this board, the best result we can achieve here is to get some action from hands that we dominate, isn't it?
• #17

#15 deliberate speed, yes, I like it.

#16 assuming the BB always plays correctly against every strategy, the BB will only continue if it is +EV (better than folding) for him to do so. If BB can achieve an EV with some hands that is better than folding, the CO rather wants BB to fold, and not allow BB to gain that EV.

If the BB plays poorly against a check or minbet, and that generates a higher EV for CO than picking up the pot on the flop, do that.
• #18

Pretty epic video - very well produced and organized.

WRT formulating indifference for villain check/bet thresholds as a potentially more accurate solution - which hand on the cusp are we attempting to neutralize between a check or a bet - the hand that is betting with the lowest equity or the hand that is checking with the lowest equity?

Bear with me as am trying to understand this material - let's look at a quick example:

co.bt

co opens - 34% - 22+, A2s+, K2s+, Q7s+, J7s+, T7s+, 96s+, 86s+, 75s+, 65s, 54s, A2o+, KTo+, QTo+

bt calls - 16% - 99-22, AQs-A2s, K9s+, Q9s+, J9s+, T9s, AQo-ATo, KTo+, QJo (sometimes flat sometimes 3b AQ but whatever lets keep it in)

assumptions villain:

bottom of cbet range = 56s without bdfd which has ~28% equity vs bt range

bottom of x range = K2s w/o bdfd at ~16%

Considering this isn't a situation which involves a significant inherent advantage for either player (equity distributions are fine with enough symmetry) should we not attempt to neutralize the co's cbet as well as their check in this instance or am I simply misunderstanding something?

Thanks
• #19

To clarify - I understand you were referring to the bottom of the co's checking range, but can you please elaborate as to why in this situation we wouldn't also apply mdf to the opponents cbetting strategy.

Thanks
• #20

The flop in the above example could be Jh8h4c

Basic question is simply there are some examples of mdf being inapplicable but what of the many situations where it is applicable?

This video says to me simply that we can cherry-pick some instances where mdf need not apply as ranges simply dont exist for it to be applicable...fair enough - most of the time it is however or again am I missing something.

Thanks
• #21

For example, bluffs on the river OOP, when they don't bluff, will have ~0EV with their alternative option of checking. That means the IP player when facing bets, should aim to make the EV of the bluffs betting ~0EV as well. This leads exactly to MDF defense vs river bets.
• #22

Hmm okay maybe I didn't phrase the question properly or didn't understand the answer well.

You just highlighted an example of mdf necessity. The video explains mdf is largely misapplied and gives outlier examples - my question is are you concluding that mdf is largely inapplicable or that mdf is justifiably the standard but simply overapplied when used in outlier situations where adequate ranges don't exist in the first place?
• #23

It looks that even in First (A8 hand example), Ranges are a little bit asymetric , Cause BB shouldn't have AA AK AQ etc, so even here MDF should be applied?
• #24

Conclusion : position matters !!!! :D
• #25

Why is the sound volume so low? I can barely hear anything.
• #26

Very good Video! Your tone of voice is so Convincing :}
• #27

Why is it that all videos are cut into 4mins only? Where's the rest of this wonderful video?

Is there a way to watch the full length of this video. This goes for the rest of the videos on the site.

Just when your enjoying the video. Dang it.