Theory Post: Reraised Blind Battles and Bluffing with Marginal Hands
 

Hi. I am a lapsed limit player trying to get back into poker and trying to get serious about learning NL, especially about examining a lot of the math underlying various situations. Hopefully I will have some dedication and be around the forum relatively frequently for a while. I have gotten a lot from lurking around here and in MSNL the last month or so, and so thought I would try to "give back" by sharing some calculations and thoughts that I have been working on.

There was a recent post where players were wondering about calling 3-bets after raising in position. I think many of us realize that we can’t call these bets if we are going to play weakly after the flop (only continue with a set or on really favorable boards) but the question of when to continue or bluff with marginal hands is tricky. Since most 100 and 200NL opponents are nits when it comes to 3-betting preflop, these situations are only applicable selectively. But those spots are still important against the more agro preflop players. And with 3-betting frequencies increasing so much as stakes rise, this seems like one of the issues that SSNL players need to figure out in order to move up.

So let’s look at a situation (Stacks=100 units) in which you raise the button 3.5 units, the SB folds, the BB bumps to 11 units, and you call. So we have 22.5 units in the pot going to the flop. The flop comes down pretty dry, leaving you with a marginal holding, and the opponont of course c-bets.

The rest of this post is going to look at the equity of bluffing on a relatively dry flop while manipulating three variables: (a) your hand – AK or 55 for simplicity’s sake (b) your opponents preflop 3-betting range and (c) your opponents range for calling a bluff if you raise. These equities can be then compared to folding, which is obviously 0 EV. Obviously, we also want to know the EV of calling given certain scenarios, but this post is so long just with bluffing that I will save that and maybe do it later if this post seems interesting to enough other posters.

You Missed, but How Often Did Your Opponent?

So let’s imagine the flop comes down T73r and your opponent makes a standard continuation bet of 16 units (into 22.5). Is raising crazy here? Well how often did he actually hit that flop hard? Let’s look at results for three preflop ranges with updated probabilities based on the flop cards. (These ranges and labels may not be accurate for many games but it captures to some degree three different ideal-typical players as far as 3-betting. I did not include a simulation for a total nit, like TT+ AK+ because intuitively I am pretty sure you don’t want to challenge this player post-flop with marginal holdings).

Two simple observations to start: (a) Your opponent’s preflop range changes things dramatically but (b) generally speaking opponents will frequently have very little on a board like this.

http://img118.imageshack.us/img118/3888/handhitsxe1.png

I think the gut reaction of many players is to fold your whiffed overcards here for sure on the T73r flop and sometimes also your small pairs. But what if you raise?

The EV of raising is going to depend on how much you are risking, his calling range and thus your fold equity (FE), and your pot equity (PE) against his calling range. A pot sized raise be a total risk of 70.5 units, which is awkward. So let’s look at the equity of a couple different bluffs – first a push for 89 units and then a small raise to 45 units.

Pushing Has to be Crazy, Right?

Let’s assume that you have AdKh and push and look at each of the preflop raising profiles based on whether they would call this push with only a very strong hand (first column in table above) or also a medium strength hand (second column in table above).

(Note that now that we have AdKh, we have to discount the chance that he has an ace or a king in his hand so the probability of calling in each situation is slightly different although not very different than the probabilities in the table above).

Your equity for each situation is going to be the sum of your FE and PE, which amounts to (1-x)(38.5) + (x)(111.5y + 89(1-y)), where x is the probability he calls and y is the probability you win against his range when called. Using pokerstove to get your PE if called by his range, here is your EV in units under those circumstances.

http://img118.imageshack.us/img118/7...setablelp0.png

Wow! As long as the player is loose enough preflop but needs TPTK or better to stack off, pushing is just printing money when compared to folding. I think that a lot of “good” SSNL players, including myself, have adopted fairly laggy preflop styles but are not calling a push light here in the BB as a default play and have trouble figuring out when that’s necessary.

While AK is a hand that we would always be continuing to the flop with in these situations, an obvious implication/generalization is that other high-card hands become more playable if we can identify which flops to profitably bluff raise. So perhaps a fairly powerful general conclusion can be drawn from this specific circumstance:

<font color="red"> Take Home Point #1 – Some of the most “surprisingly exploitable” players at SSNL are those who, in trying to improve and imitate the styles of known high-limit winners, have let their preflop aggression outpace their ability to counter post-flop aggression. Against this type of player, you can profit immensely by running them over on the right dry flops. This should expand your preflop calling range if you’re really going to capitalize on these opportunities. </font>

Another interesting conclusion from this is how dramatically the EV of plays changes based on seemingly small adjustments to ranges. The only difference between the SLAG and the TAG preflop is a willingness to three-bet with AJ or KQs, and the only difference between the strong and medium calling ranges of these players is a willingness to stack off with 99 or 88. But if you push here, the difference in EV between being up against a SLAG/strong range versus a TAG/medium range is 23 units!

This may say something interesting about the notion of “changing gears.” Let’s pretend we’re the BB for a second. In some sense, changing gears is about establishing an image for your opponent of the “state of the world” being a given cell of the table above and then adjusting your play to make a different cell the de facto reality. Moving to an iterated situation or one in which you are trying to mix strategies against a range obviously involves a lot more than the simple model presented here, but I think the table above does show how profitable it can be in some situations for the BB to shift gears and trap.

<font color="red"> Take Home Point #2: If your opponent is a thinking one and has likely become suspicious of your bluffing in these situations, then you need to track any changes in his 3-betting tendencies and be careful. Because if a SLAG/strong changes gears to a TAG/medium, then a must-capitalize +EV opportunity can quickly become a big –EV mistake. </font>

What About Underpairs?

So lets get back to the main discussion. What if, instead of overcards like AKo, you have a small pair like 55? Is raising still better than folding?

http://img252.imageshack.us/img252/8...setablezh1.png

Things are not quite as rosy if you hold an underpair, since your equity against his calling range decreases dramatically – the draw value of AKo is much preferable to having a pair. If you know with high probability your opponents’ 3-betting and push-calling ranges, then pushing may still be profitable. But notice how much it hurts if your assumptions are wrong. For instance, with AK we may not have a great grasp of the villain’s 3-betting range, but as long as we are relatively sure that he won’t call a push with 99 or 88 then it is hard for us to make a big mistake. With 55, pushing into the nittier preflop three betters is going to be a big mistake even if they are never calling light.

<font color=" red"> Take Home Point #3: If you are going to attempt to run the opponent over, consider not the strength of your hand currently but its equity against your opponents calling range. Basically, overcards can constitute a semi-semi-bluff. </font>

Are Small Raises Really Donk-Like?

Ok, so bluff raising dry flops looks like something that needs to be added to the arsenal in some situations. But is pushing necessarily the best idea? Small raises are often derided but may be pretty effective in SSNL games. Let’s consider a situation where you raise to 40 units and your opponent will still fold all the hands he folded to a push but will push all the hands he previously called, with you then folding to that push. What does your equity look like now? (Since you are folding to the push if it comes, having AK versus 55 only matters in so far as it slightly changes the probabilities of his holdings. These calcs assume AK.)

http://img118.imageshack.us/img118/2...nkraisecw0.png

Behold the power of the donk raise! Of course, your opponent may be less likely to fold to this raise with a medium strength hand (and will not always push over, but that’s the simulation). But I do think many SSNL players at least will fold hands like 88 or 99 here for 24 more units, feeling that calling commits them to the pot and being unsure what to do on the turn if they call and don’t improve. If you are up against that type of player, then the donk raise in this spot is almost always better than folding no matter what you have. Also notice that, against the looser preflop 3-betters, the small raise is a winning play no matter what unless they are willing to expand their repushing range even more. The small raise also obviously has the advantage of lower variance.

<font color="red"> Take Home Point #4 – Don’t discount the power of the small bluff raise. If you can find a player that will still fold medium strength hands to a small raise or is loose enough with preflop three-bets, then a small raise on dry flops can be devastating. </font>


What About Other Flops?

For the ranges examined here, the T73r flop is pretty generalizable to other flops with three relatively low cards, no flush draw, and few straight draws. I don’t see why 962, 755, T83, etc would be much different. Even J high flops are pretty similar for players with the tighter ranges, since they won’t have many more jacks than tens. Flops with As, Ks, and Qs are a different beast. Also, flops with flush draws that are low may also play differently. The chances of your opponent having the draw are actually very slim, so it shouldn’t affect the strength of his hand that much. But we would assume that opponents are going to call raises lighter if there is a flush draw, since raising the FD in our position is so typical. Therefore, it probably makes sense to think of a T73ss flop to play roughly similar to the T73r one examined here, but that the opponent is significantly more likely to be calling with a range that includes medium-strength hands.

Ok, so that got way too long. The major caveat I would add (other than the very real possibility that my math is wrong) is that naturally our overall strategy involves mixing our range and so looking at just one isolated situation should be taken with a grain of salt. Hope this provides some fodder for discussion.

Re: Theory Post: Reraised Blind Battles and Bluffing with Marginal Hands
 

this is a really cool post. i'm reading it again.

Re: Theory Post: Reraised Blind Battles and Bluffing with Marginal Hands
 

Sticky

Re: Theory Post: Reraised Blind Battles and Bluffing with Marginal Hands
 

only thing i rarely, if ever do is the small bluff raise. i used to do it a bit, but then once i realized that i will rarely raise the flop with any hand in RR-ed pots (be it a set/TPTK/2p/etc), i sortve stopped doing it. (of course this depends on board texture...if i have JTs and the board is JTx w. 2 of a suite, of course i'm raising). but as far as dry flops, meh.

Re: Theory Post: Reraised Blind Battles and Bluffing with Marginal Hands
 

fwiw, aba20 touched upon this point you made too in his well post: when bluffing keep in mind your equity vs villains calling range. hence pushing AK is better than 55.. etc

I like this post OP. nice job.

Re: Theory Post: Reraised Blind Battles and Bluffing with Marginal Hands
 

[ QUOTE ]
fwiw, aba20 touched upon this point you made too in his well post: when bluffing keep in mind your equity vs villains calling range. hence pushing AK is better than 55.. etc

I like this post OP. nice job.

[/ QUOTE ]

I thought about the aba post too when I read that.

Great post sam.

Re: Theory Post: Reraised Blind Battles and Bluffing with Marginal Hands
 

[ QUOTE ]
Take Home Point #1 – Some of the most “surprisingly exploitable” players at SSNL are those who, in trying to improve and imitate the styles of known high-limit winners, have let their preflop aggression outpace their ability to counter post-flop aggression. Against this type of player, you can profit immensely by running them over on the right dry flops. This should expand your preflop calling range if you’re really going to capitalize on these opportunities.

[/ QUOTE ]
...uh, that'd be me.

I really like this post. Please post the calling analysis. I feel certain it will be "interesting to enough other posters".

Posts like this also make me feel guilty for lurking around 2+2 for years.

Re: Theory Post: Reraised Blind Battles and Bluffing with Marginal Hands
 

Awesome, thanks dude

Re: Theory Post: Reraised Blind Battles and Bluffing with Marginal Hands
 

Brilliant post. Thanks for sharing.

Re: Theory Post: Reraised Blind Battles and Bluffing with Marginal Han
 

Very nice. Thanks. Sticky.

Re: Theory Post: Reraised Blind Battles and Bluffing with Marginal Han
 

Thanks for the kind words guys. Getting killed with work right now but maybe in a while I will try to do one of these on either calling in these spots or one on bluff raising continuation bets on various types of flops when you cold call preflop in position.

Re: Theory Post: Reraised Blind Battles and Bluffing with Marginal Han
 

Great post.

It would be interesting to see how your conclusions would change with different board textures. I may have to run some numbers of my own when I have the time...

Re: Theory Post: Reraised Blind Battles and Bluffing with Marginal Han
 

great post

Re: Theory Post: Reraised Blind Battles and Bluffing with Marginal Hands
 

Thanks. Great post. This should get a link in one of the stickies.

Re: Theory Post: Reraised Blind Battles and Bluffing with Marginal Han
 

Great post, probably a little over simplified, but I think you made your point very well. I would think that doing this a lot would cost you a lot of money as people would catch on, but I think it shows how valuable it is to be some what unpredictable.

Re: Theory Post: Reraised Blind Battles and Bluffing with Marginal Hands
 

tag.

Re: Theory Post: Reraised Blind Battles and Bluffing with Marginal Han
 

no way we can raise AK to 40 units and fold when pushed over for 30 units in a 170 unit pot. So I think pushing is the same as the small raise since it's going in anyway (because if his range for pushing consists of single pairs less than A or K we are getting tremendous odds w/ our AK)

Re: Theory Post: Reraised Blind Battles and Bluffing with Marginal Han
 

Oh great, now I have to deal with all these tags bluffraising me...Thank you !! (grrrr [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img])

Einher makes a good point, perhaps leave the donkraise for the small pairs and the push for AK equity wise.


This finally gives me a weapon against those bitchy 'getting out of line but not caring' 3-bettors, I thought about floating and bluff pushing preflop but this is fairly genious as well. [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]


Is anybody still using the idea of pushing Axs and/or suited connectors preflop against frequint 3-bettors?
How have the results been so far? I could make a new thread but this is fairly close to the OP and a quick question regarding the same concepts (attacking frequint 3-bettors)...

Re: Theory Post: Reraised Blind Battles and Bluffing with Marginal Han
 

Excellant post and one that may well change the landscape of SSNL games. This will force many players to start 2nd guessing themselves and making mistakes later in the session. Also has great metagame value and if the correct adjustments can be made once players catch onto what your doing, then you can have a field day whenever you actually have a big hand and flat call 3 bets pre.

Re: Theory Post: Reraised Blind Battles and Bluffing with Marginal Han
 

[ QUOTE ]
no way we can raise AK to 40 units and fold when pushed over for 30 units in a 170 unit pot. So I think pushing is the same as the small raise since it's going in anyway (because if his range for pushing consists of single pairs less than A or K we are getting tremendous odds w/ our AK)

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you miscalculated the stacks, since calling the BBs push here would involve putting in another 49 units. If calling that 49 units with AK was correct against the range specified then the EV of the "raise 40, with the intention of folding" would be lower than the EV of pushing. But thats not the case. If he also pushes with some overcard rebluffs, then maybe things change.

Re: Theory Post: Reraised Blind Battles and Bluffing with Marginal Han
 

[ QUOTE ]
(These ranges and labels may not be accurate for many games but it captures to some degree three different ideal-typical players as far as 3-betting. I did not include a simulation for a total nit, like TT+ AK+ because intuitively I am pretty sure you don’t want to challenge this player post-flop with marginal holdings).

[/ QUOTE ]

Two concerns of mine with this thread...
1) The main problem I see is that the 3-bet range for a "total nit" that you outlined above is not that terribly far from the OOP 3-bet range from a standard unknown TAG at these limits. Sure most 2p2 TAGs are re-raising with AT sometimes, AJ/AQ often, etc., but it takes quite a few hands with someone to determine his 3-bet range, and it certainly can't be clearly deduced from HUD stats.

Until you know for sure that villain is 3-betting lite enough for this to be profitable (for instance he 3-bets hands like 77 and AJ every time even though a lot of active 3-betters still just call sometimes), then I think you're going to be spewing often. And once you know villain does 3-bet lite--say he shows down a SC in a rr pot or something--it's likely that he'll narrow his 3-bet range after everyone saw him get out of line.

2) I just don't like the idea of bluffing against someone's narrowed range when it's uncertain exactly what you're representing. Do you always raise sets on that dry flop? Do you shove QQ/JJ? A lot of the times, no. Don't you 4bet preflop with AA/KK sometimes?

I'm not crazy about hand analysis that assumes "well villain can only call if he has xx" because that ignores what villain perceives to be your range (well I guess if he only calls with xx he's intuitively putting you on a range, so I'm mainly saying there are a lot more factors to look than simply "we go all in so he always folds xx- and calls with yy+").

Keyser (on my gimmick while I studddy!!!)

Re: Theory Post: Reraised Blind Battles and Bluffing with Marginal Han
 

natty bumppo!

Re: Theory Post: Reraised Blind Battles and Bluffing with Marginal Han
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
(These ranges and labels may not be accurate for many games but it captures to some degree three different ideal-typical players as far as 3-betting. I did not include a simulation for a total nit, like TT+ AK+ because intuitively I am pretty sure you don’t want to challenge this player post-flop with marginal holdings).

[/ QUOTE ]

Two concerns of mine with this thread...
1) The main problem I see is that the 3-bet range for a "total nit" that you outlined above is not that terribly far from the OOP 3-bet range from a standard unknown TAG at these limits. Sure most 2p2 TAGs are re-raising with AT sometimes, AJ/AQ often, etc., but it takes quite a few hands with someone to determine his 3-bet range, and it certainly can't be clearly deduced from HUD stats.



[/ QUOTE ]

Ilimp,

Glad to have your thoughts. I have been away from the boards for a while, and actually not playing too much poker. Here are a few thoughts in response.

I don't really disagree that there are many nitty TAGs out there. But I do think that you can get a pretty good feel for the likely 3-betting range of a lot of regs fairly quickly. HUD stats are definitely useless, but its not really a question that should be approached looking for probabilistic evidence anyway. Just seeing a few hands shown down suffices to give you a pretty good guess at least whether the player is a TAG/nit or not. Plus, I think you can infer a fair amount from other aspects of play for some players.

[ QUOTE ]

Until you know for sure that villain is 3-betting lite enough for this to be profitable (for instance he 3-bets hands like 77 and AJ every time even though a lot of active 3-betters still just call sometimes), then I think you're going to be spewing often. And once you know villain does 3-bet lite--say he shows down a SC in a rr pot or something--it's likely that he'll narrow his 3-bet range after everyone saw him get out of line.

[/ QUOTE ]

I definitely agree that its not necessarily easy to put somebody on a range, especially if they are changing gears. But I don't think most multi-tablers change gears at this level very often or effectively.

[ QUOTE ]

2) I just don't like the idea of bluffing against someone's narrowed range when it's uncertain exactly what you're representing. Do you always raise sets on that dry flop? Do you shove QQ/JJ? A lot of the times, no. Don't you 4bet preflop with AA/KK sometimes?

[/ QUOTE ]

Clearly their ability to call with a weak hand should influence your decision, especially since the board is dry. But at these levels I have seen so few players who will actually call a push there with ace high or 44. To some degree, at SSNL I don't think your ability to represent a hand matters so much. That's why your opponents are playing SSNL.

[ QUOTE ]

I'm not crazy about hand analysis that assumes "well villain can only call if he has xx" because that ignores what villain perceives to be your range (well I guess if he only calls with xx he's intuitively putting you on a range, so I'm mainly saying there are a lot more factors to look than simply "we go all in so he always folds xx- and calls with yy+").

Keyser (on my gimmick while I studddy!!!)

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree that this kind of analysis has to be taken with several grains of salt. On the other hand, at least in my experience, these kinds of simplified models can be very helpful for understanding the basic mathematical contours underlying "real world" poker, in which additional factors are coming into play. The point here is not to say, "look you should always do this." The point is to suggest that most SSNL players should probably do this kind of thing a whole lot more, but that of course you have to pick your spots.

Re: Theory Post: Reraised Blind Battles and Bluffing with Marginal Hands
 

Nice post.

Re: Theory Post: Reraised Blind Battles and Bluffing with Marginal Han
 

awesome

A+

Re: Theory Post: Reraised Blind Battles and Bluffing with Marginal Han
 

Why isn't this in the sticky? Or did I look over it? Or should I send the mods a PM?

Re: Theory Post: Reraised Blind Battles and Bluffing with Marginal Han
 

bump 'cause its so good

Re: Theory Post: Reraised Blind Battles and Bluffing with Marginal Han
 

Say you do reraise on the dry flop with AK (and your image is sLAG) the small amount. Also, say the continuation better is a LAG that has a high rate of continuation betting.

Do you guys put any thouhgt into the timing of your bet. For example, would you bet very fast after he raised or wait a few seconds to make it look like you are thinking something through (I generaly think a pretty quick reraise shows weakness, and a lot of the times agressive laggish opponents just seem to be looking for an excuse to continue with the hand).

So in conclusion, do you guys factor timing into your play also in these situations or not?? I think I would generaly take my time a little bit but not overly long before I reraise.

Re: Theory Post: Reraised Blind Battles and Bluffing with Marginal Han
 

This post is completely flawed. All your math may be right but you make a big mistake with your proposed hand ranges for the 3 groups of players.

To not weight the hand ranges for say the LAG player which you suggest is 22+, AJo+ and JTs+ is to be frank plain wrong. I'm afraid the odds of them reraising for instance 22 is nowhere close to the chances of them reaising AA(100%) or KK(100%) so guess what, that puts all your numbers dramatically off as you will be facing the premium to average reraising hands with MUCH more frequency than the poor reraising hands.

You need to at least attempt to weight them so as to say :-

22-55 reraise chances - 10% (not a common reraise(unless we are talking heads up) at all even from the craziest lags)
66-77 - 25%
88-99 - 50%
TT - 75%
JJ - 95%
QQ - 100%
KK - 100%
AA - 100%

For example if the hands were played face up you would see AA four times as often in the Lag's hand as 66. Your figures are worked out on the basis that they are both equally likely.

The above would at least be an attempt to weight the pairs but of course it is just guessing and rather generous I feel for the lower pairs.

The same goes for AJ+ etc as well as JTs+ etc too. Just so silly to think that even the loosest of players will be reraising your raises with AJ as often as they do with AK. It is CLEARLY not the case.

Anyway, this will dramatically change your end figures suggesting as I know already that pushing Ace King high on this pretend flop is not going to be in general profitable vs the Lag and Slags like your figures suggest.

Best wishes
Iain

Re: Theory Post: Reraised Blind Battles and Bluffing with Marginal Han
 

Is this working?

Re: Theory Post: Reraised Blind Battles and Bluffing with Marginal Han
 

Great post sam h. Bluff reraising cont bets on the flop is a key tool of the good player that isn't discussed enough.

Re: Theory Post: Reraised Blind Battles and Bluffing with Marginal Han
 

[ QUOTE ]
This post is completely flawed. All your math may be right but you make a big mistake with your proposed hand ranges for the 3 groups of players.

To not weight the hand ranges for say the LAG player which you suggest is 22+, AJo+ and JTs+ is to be frank plain wrong. I'm afraid the odds of them reraising for instance 22 is nowhere close to the chances of them reaising AA(100%) or KK(100%) so guess what, that puts all your numbers dramatically off as you will be facing the premium to average reraising hands with MUCH more frequency than the poor reraising hands.

You need to at least attempt to weight them so as to say :-

22-55 reraise chances - 10% (not a common reraise(unless we are talking heads up) at all even from the craziest lags)
66-77 - 25%
88-99 - 50%
TT - 75%
JJ - 95%
QQ - 100%
KK - 100%
AA - 100%

For example if the hands were played face up you would see AA four times as often in the Lag's hand as 66. Your figures are worked out on the basis that they are both equally likely.

The above would at least be an attempt to weight the pairs but of course it is just guessing and rather generous I feel for the lower pairs.

The same goes for AJ+ etc as well as JTs+ etc too. Just so silly to think that even the loosest of players will be reraising your raises with AJ as often as they do with AK. It is CLEARLY not the case.

Anyway, this will dramatically change your end figures suggesting as I know already that pushing Ace King high on this pretend flop is not going to be in general profitable vs the Lag and Slags like your figures suggest.

Best wishes
Iain

[/ QUOTE ]

If we have AK in our hand as well, Villain has 6 ways of having 22/44/55/66/88/99/JJ/QQ, 3 ways of having 33/77/TT/KK/AA, 9 ways of having AK, 12 ways of having AQ. Also, if you want to give more weight to the bigger pairs, you probably should also give more weight to AK/AQ.

I'm too lazy to crunch the numbers, but I think you'll find that bluff-shoving or bluff-raising AK on a whiffed flop is still profitable under the right conditions.

Re: Theory Post: Reraised Blind Battles and Bluffing with Marginal Han
 

Easily my favorite post ever.

Re: Theory Post: Reraised Blind Battles and Bluffing with Marginal Han
 

A+

Re: Theory Post: Reraised Blind Battles and Bluffing with Marginal Hands
 

Nice concepts/thoughts put into your post.

I just have a few comments/questions.

1) I really don't think pushing is optimal on the flop.

If we put in 11 units pre and villain leads 16 on the flop, then we're pushing 73 units over a 16 unit bet for a 38.5 pot, especially on a dry board.

2)I'm not really sure how you came up with the % of different villains making TPTK/set/overpair. I'd like to see how you did this. Intuitively, I would estimate that a LAG would hit the flop more frequently than a TAG as their range is wider than a TAGs.

3)Also, I'd like to know how you came up with your FE.
[ QUOTE ]
(1-x)(38.5) + (x)(111.5y + 89(1-y)),

[/ QUOTE ]
I understand that x is FE and y is PE. I also understand that you came up with PE from Pokerstove, but you never stated how you came up with FE. I'm guessing you're using the probability of the villain hitting the flop?

Once again, I'll say that we have less FE against a sLAG/LAg but more PE and more FE against a TAG but far less PE against respective villain's calling ranges.

I did some calculations assuming we have 24% equity against sLAG/LAG's calling range and 12% equity against a TAG. With these you'll need 51% and 65% FE against a sLAG/LAG and TAG respectively.

Re: Theory Post: Reraised Blind Battles and Bluffing with Marginal Hands
 

You obviously put a lot of time into this post, and as you can judge from the responses, it was well worth it. Thanks much.

Re: Theory Post: Reraised Blind Battles and Bluffing with Marginal Hands
 

I'm just wondering how he's calculating the % of villain's hitting the flop.

Thanks for your comment though.