Theory Post: Reraised Blind Battles and Bluffing with Marginal Hands

[wrkingtobegreat]

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

[GuyIncognito]

[ 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.

[willw9]

Easily my favorite post ever.

[LuckySal]

A+

[relativity_x]

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.

[FishSticks]

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.

[relativity_x]

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

Thanks for your comment though.