Exploitive play question

[SeanC]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If we're in some situation where the villain's hand is concretely defined to be either a hand he should value bet or a hand he can either bluff with or check with (and I guess some hands in between that he just checks with), and if we also assume that there's a set of our holdings rigidly defined as bluff-catchers (hands better than all his bluffing hands and worse than all his value betting hands), then there will be some optimal amount of the time he should bluff when he has a bluffing hand. If he bluffs precisely this optimal amount, we will be indifferent to calling and folding with our bluff-catchers.

If the opponent bluffs more often than this than our correct strategy is to call with 100% of our bluff-catchers, while if he bluffs less often than this our correct strategy is to fold all of our bluff-catchers.

OP asked if we could easily calculate this indifference threshold, and I agree that we could in this artificial situation where hands may be rigidly defined as hands you bet for value or hands you bet as a bluff, and also where hands can be rigidly defined for bluff-catchers (the A, K, Q game is the most iconic game of this type, where aces are bet for value, kings are always checked, and queens are only bet as bluffs, while kings become bluff-catchers).

[/ QUOTE ]

That makes sense, thanks.

Practically speaking then, how do we determine when someone is bluffing too much or too little? I assume there's some mathematical method applied, right? Or is it just an "obvious" kind of thing that strikes you ("wow, he's bluffing a lot")? As the correct exploitive response to an over-bluffer is to call with all bluff-catchers (until he wisens up and stops bluffing so much), I'd think there is some kind of math to determine what is "too much," even if it's pretty simple...

[/ QUOTE ]

If you restrict yourself to limit (or some single bet size the opponent will always make) then the math is pretty simple, but it depends on the size of the pot, how often the opponent holds a value betting hand, how often the opponent holds a bluffable hand, how often we hold bluff catchers / hands we always call with for value / hands we always fold. If you're really interested this is the sort of stuff Mathematics of Poker is about and I highly recommend it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, I'm actually currently studying MoP. Really great book. I've read ~13 poker books (all the normal stuff--mainly 2p2) and MoP is amazing to me. I finally am learning the tools I need to unlock the "secrets" of strong play and sound strategy. Excel and PokerStove make it pretty straightforward. My 2nd favorite book was NLHE TAP.

[holdem2000]

[ QUOTE ]
OPP pots the river, laying 2-1. I hold a bluff-catching type hand--middle pair or something. I believe OPP's value-betting range that beats me is X, and it contains let's say 40 combinations. As I'm getting 2-1, OPP would need to be bluffing with ~13 combinations (33% of his v-betting range) for me to be indifferent to calling or folding. If, by my estimations, he would bluff less than 13 combinations then I should fold; if I estimate he could be bluffing with more than 13, I should call.

[/ QUOTE ]

Close, to make you indifferent between calling and folding he'd need to be bluffing 20 combinations, so that way he'd be betting 60 total combinations, 1/3 of which would be bluffs... you're getting 2:1 odds and you're indifferent between calling/folding when his ratio of value bets to bluffs is also 2:1.

On a bit of a tangent on the application side, even if we pick out 20 hand combinations the opponent may bluff with, usually we wont think that the opponent will bluff those hands every time that he gets them. If there are 40 combinations he'd bluff but he'd only bluff with them half the time then we weight each of those 40 combinations by a half and there are effectively only 20 combinations so we're again indifferent. I examine this more fully in my post here: http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showfl...&PHPSESSID=

[holdem2000]

[ QUOTE ]
My 2nd favorite book was NLHE TAP.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm probably going to start teaching my dad how to play seriously online... he's got a little experience in microstake homegames and a couple trips to casinos playing 1/2 limit. Besides teaching him myself, I'm having him read Theory of Poker, and then I was thinking about either NLHE TAP or Professional NLHE Volume I... Do you think NLHE TAP is going to be pretty useful in his situation? (also PNLHE if you've read that one?)

Edit: I haven't read either NLHE TAP or PNLHE myself yet.

[SeanC]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
OPP pots the river, laying 2-1. I hold a bluff-catching type hand--middle pair or something. I believe OPP's value-betting range that beats me is X, and it contains let's say 40 combinations. As I'm getting 2-1, OPP would need to be bluffing with ~13 combinations (33% of his v-betting range) for me to be indifferent to calling or folding. If, by my estimations, he would bluff less than 13 combinations then I should fold; if I estimate he could be bluffing with more than 13, I should call.

[/ QUOTE ]

Close, to make you indifferent between calling and folding he'd need to be bluffing 20 combinations, so that way he'd be betting 60 total combinations, 1/3 of which would be bluffs... you're getting 2:1 odds and you're indifferent between calling/folding when his ratio of value bets to bluffs is also 2:1.

On a bit of a tangent on the application side, even if we pick out 20 hand combinations the opponent may bluff with, usually we wont think that the opponent will bluff those hands every time that he gets them. If there are 40 combinations he'd bluff but he'd only bluff with them half the time then we weight each of those 40 combinations by a half and there are effectively only 20 combinations so we're again indifferent. I examine this more fully in my post here: http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showfl...&PHPSESSID=

[/ QUOTE ]

Ah yeah, good point on the 40-20 issue. I guess the simplest way to figure that out at the table is just to divide the v-bet combinations by the first number in pot odds? OPP bets pot with what you think are 60 combinations, then he'd need to bluff with at least 30 to be indifferent (2-1 pot odds). 1/2 pot with 20 v-bet combos is ~6 bluff combos (3-1), etc.

Thanks for the link, I'll check it out.

[SeanC]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
My 2nd favorite book was NLHE TAP.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm probably going to start teaching my dad how to play seriously online... he's got a little experience in microstake homegames and a couple trips to casinos playing 1/2 limit. Besides teaching him myself, I'm having him read Theory of Poker, and then I was thinking about either NLHE TAP or Professional NLHE Volume I... Do you think NLHE TAP is going to be pretty useful in his situation? (also PNLHE if you've read that one?)

Edit: I haven't read either NLHE TAP or PNLHE myself yet.

[/ QUOTE ]

NLHE TAP has great concepts; I'd definitely recommend your dad read it as long as he understands the basics (hand/pot odds, outs, etc.). Theory of Poker is good, but I found it hard to apply before reading some more advanced texts. I think TAP + MoP + Excel and PokerStove strategy-building work is a very strong combination. The key is putting in that off-the-table work and drilling though. Poker gets pretty significant and without drilling you can only absorb so much.

I haven't read PNLHE, but I looked through the REM section (Range, Equity, Maximize) and it looked like a good primer on the subject. I think that MoP's coverage is stronger but MoP is, I'm sure, a tougher book.

I'm helping a couple friends learn (I'm not great but I'm a winning player) from scratch and my lineup is:

1. Simple 2p2 intro book (teaches outs, odds, etc.) to start.

2. Gordon's Little Green Book (actually has some good basic concepts and espouses a good tight, aggressive pre-flop style that helps to keep noobs out of tough situations) so they can play some micro without being totally lost.

3. NLHE TAP to really start learning. This may be too high of a gradient coming off LGB, but I think it'll be alright. If not I think I'd have them read HoH vol 1 and then TAP. I would have to look over HoH 1 though as I don't remember how weighted it is for tournament play (I was mainly a tourney player when I read it so I didn't make too much of a distinction at the time).

4. MoP + my spreadsheets and word docs so they don't have to redo the "homework."

I'm also insisting they clarify all terms they don't understand and any and all conceptual confusions by using a dictionary or poker dictionary, by asking me or by posting on 2p2. Going past [censored] you don't understand makes studying 10x harder, haha.