View Single Post
  #24  
Old 01-13-2007, 06:27 PM
leaponthis leaponthis is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 250
Default Re: Balancing Bluffs vs Balancing Strategy

[ QUOTE ]
on two-flushed boards for people to semi-bluff raise liberally on the turn (including all flush draws, straight draws, and other weaker draws such as small pair+gutshot and the like).

The exploitive response to this that I observed was for original bettors to three-bet liberally, including hands as weak as middle pair in this sequence, because the number of semi-bluffs was just far too high compared to the number of value raises (as these players wouldn't adjust their value raise thresholds to balance). Against a properly balanced strategy, three-betting this liberally is a disaster. This also shows a clear example of why, contrary to some players' assertions, playing optimally or in a balanced manner isn't about equalizing all your opponent's actions --just the ones that are on the borders.


[/ QUOTE ]

If I read this correctly the semi-bluffing liberal raiser was raising so frequently with draws that he was being exploited via three bets from his opponent. So you propose balancing your semi-bluff raises via a game theory (randomized) approach that takes into account value raising your good hands.

I can see where a randomizing approach is certainly preferable to consistently semi-bluff raising in the face of a consistent three bet. Are you proposing that whenever one finds themselves in a potential semi-bluff situation that one semi-bluff on a randomized basis? The semi-bluff concept includes some liklihood that your opponent will fold. If done without this in mind then the raiser is making a mistake. This liklihood leads to one having knowledge of their opponent. So if done correclty one would only semi-bluff in situations where there is a good chance that it will produce the desired results. Randomizing would mean that you would sometimes be semi-bluffing knowing that there was no chance of obtaining the desired results. Sure you would nulify the consistent three betters exploitation of a semi-bluff but so what you would now be making semi-bluffs knowing they were not suited to the situation.

leaponthis
Reply With Quote