Re: blitzing on third and long and the problem with poker forum advice
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So the times you don't have the straight, the correct strategy is majority check, minority bet, even though "check" has 0 e.v. and "bet" has negative e.v. Is there a mistake here?
[/ QUOTE ]
+
[ QUOTE ]
I have a more than cursory familiarity with game theory.
[/ QUOTE ]
= does not compute.
Against an maximally exploitive opponent in a clairvoyant situation like the one you describe, bluffing does not have -EV. It has 0EV because his calling frequency makes you indifferent to bluffing.
It gets no more basic than this.
If your opponent is not maximally exploitive, and will be either folding or calling too often, you would not want to use a mixed strategy. You would either always bluff (because bluffing is +EV) or never bluff (because bluffing is -EV.)
What part of this do you not understand?
[/ QUOTE ]
You are wrong, in pete's example of bluffing into a DRY sidepot, a bluff with pure air (a bet) is always negative EV.
[/ QUOTE ]
WTF? not bluffing loses the main pot. We are talking about a poker-like game with antes, right?
[/ QUOTE ]
My sir, think about your last statement. let's say you and villain both call someone who's all in on the flop. there is a massive main pot but nothing in the sidepot. There is your totally 100% dry sidepot.
|