Coordinating your ranges

[midnightpulp]

In "The Math of Poker" there's a few chapters devoted to value betting and protecting those value bets with bluffs.

The authors provided a "range" chart, showing an optimal frequency between value bets/raises and bluff bets/raises for their toy game examples.

For example: say we're playing with an regular opponent we know to be a typical, strong TAG. His perception of us is the same. He raises us on the button. We 3 bet him in the SB with AJ. He calls. For argument's sake we have X-Ray vision and see that he has 55.

The flop comes: Q78. We bet, he calls. Turn pairs the board. We bet again and he calls. We know that he knows that his hand plays well against our range. The river is Ten.

This is where it gets interesting. If we bet, can he call? The common perception is that a TAG will hardly bet a hand in this spot that 55 beats.

Oink often talks about establishing an unbluffable image. However, these's little discussion of establishing a bluffer's image.

That said, I'd like to ask the vets how you employ this concept to protect your value betting/raising hands?

[sethypooh21]

I'm not sure how good your example is as far as the concept you're getting at. I wrote a post in the last week or so along these lines (search for "credibility" I believe). The gist was that in order to have fold equity, you must have played the hand in a similar way to how you've been seen to play the hand you are repping. Your example is easy, because you're actions have been consistent with a hand that beats his on any street. If you *know8 he has 55, and he doesn't know you know, you should obviously bet here, because 55 can't call on this board can it? If he knows you know, then it becomes more interesting and is an exercise in psychology and table flow more than math or poker theory - you can "solve" for the optimal bluffing percentage, but I don't feel that such an exercise has a ton of in-game application, because it gets just too meta.

[stokken]

When it comes to application of balancing your gamebook at the stakes this forum reps I hardly feel its worth spending the time working out such puzzles. As to few pay attention and to rarely do you encounter the same players over a significant number of hands

Stokken

[midnightpulp]

Nice post, Seth. The kind of response I was looking for.

What I'm doing is brain-storming on how to effectively apply these meta-game concepts to an actual game.

For instance, I have AQ UI OOP against a TAG, I have the initiative and bet the flop, turn, the river is another blank. I suspect he will only call with a hand that beats me. If I check, he'll check down the lowest range of his SD worthy hands, and bet his better hands for value. SOP here is usually to check-fold. But how often should we bet?

I understand it's impossible to quantify an exact frequency. Consider this to be more of a thought experiment of how to cultivate an image so you get paid off with your good hands against other decent players.

Over the years of reading the limit section here, it seems the more successful players have an image that's both bluffer and unbluffable. They get paid for their hands, while preventing themselves from folding too many winners.

[midnightpulp]

[ QUOTE ]
When it comes to application of balancing your gamebook at the stakes this forum reps I hardly feel its worth spending the time working out such puzzles. As to few pay attention and to rarely do you encounter the same players over a significant number of hands

Stokken

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree.

But there are times you encounter the same TAG multitablers over and over, so I'm trying to figure out what's an effective way to get the best of them.

[sethypooh21]

[ QUOTE ]
Nice post, Seth. The kind of response I was looking for.

What I'm doing is brain-storming on how to effectively apply these meta-game concepts to an actual game.

For instance, I have AQ UI OOP against a TAG, I have the initiative and bet the flop, turn, the river is another blank. I suspect he will only call with a hand that beats me. If I check, he'll check down the lowest range of his SD worthy hands, and bet his better hands for value. SOP here is usually to check-fold. But how often should we bet?

[/ QUOTE ]

Your asking the wrong question in this specific example - the question is how often should you call when he bets. In practice, you should probably bet about never vs. a good tag here - if he folds, you had the best hand anyway, and if he calls you are so beat by 98% of his range. So the only way to get value here is to induce a bluff. This is a pretty board and opponent dependent read whether to check with the intention of folding or checking with the intention of calling. If your Heisenberg, you might get really fancy and check with the intention of bluffraising, but I never feel like I have close to a good enough read to try this one.

[ QUOTE ]
I understand it's impossible to quantify an exact frequency. Consider this to be more of a thought experiment of how to cultivate an image so you get paid off with your good hands against other decent players.

[/ QUOTE ]

Basically, you get paid off by making yourself appear looser and more aggro than you actually are. The easiest way to do this is in blind steal and defense situations, as your ranges will be (correctly) wider in these spots. People don't always take this into account, instead remembering when you show down K5s and the like.

[ QUOTE ]
Over the years of reading the limit section here, it seems the more successful players have an image that's both bluffer and unbluffable. They get paid for their hands, while preventing themselves from folding too many winners.

[/ QUOTE ]

You've pretty much just described good poker...

[vmacosta]

Yes you should sometimes 3-barrel when the board gets scarier and scarier. There are two things that don't jive with this concept in your example though.

1. When the turn bricked off the tag will SD too much so you should have c/f (since you know he has 55).

2. While the river completed some draws, too many people fire the river with UI AJ+ because they don't know what else to do. Therefore the tag can't fold most pairs there.

I don't mean to nitpick at the example, OP, but I am hoping to illustrate just how rare it is that you find yourself in a spot where you can bluff out what you know to be a pair. The reason why its ok to bet a wide range on some boards is that you don't always have to fold out a pair--you will sometimes have the best hand. In mathofpoker geek terms, his range can't call your range and win enough of the time to profit.

In fact, even in your example your river bet there is more profitable if you don't know his hand (since now AJ and AK are part of his range and they should fold).

sorry for knowitall tone--I am trying to work on this but too lazy to fix right now...

[yellowjack]

Great topic.

In this situation, a tag should be calling down here. Here's some work I did in a minute:

Board: Qc 7c 8h 7h Ts
Dead:

equity win tie pots won pots tied
Hand 0: 55.172% 55.17% 00.00% 384 0.00 { TT+, 88-77, A9s+, KJs+, A9o+, KQo }
Hand 1: 44.828% 44.83% 00.00% 312 0.00 { 55 }

Of course there is the metagame that the standard play with AJ on the river is to c/f. So this stove only works if you haven't been caught 3-barrelling vs. a tag.

It takes a very long history with a player to be able to call the turn but fold the river, because the general assumption is that if you call the turn, are you always calling the river.

I don't know what exactly you're asking for regarding protecting value bets & raises w/ a range of hands.

I don't agree with being unbluffable as being the image we are aiming for. Different table images call for different countermeasures as you play. Of course, being familiar with what to do with one image is better than being medicore at dealing with different situations.

I agree with stokken in that it's not worth the time of most forumers to work this out. However, I think it's worth looking at if you're serious about your game and are almost in the mid-stakes territory. This is even more worth it on smaller sites.

I would never bet AQ there unless I had noticed at least once he had called the turn and folded the river when a possible draw hit and nothing else changed. If he did, that means a made hand is being folded. It's only possible to consider this when you're 2-tabling or less imo, so that you can take extensive notes as if you were playing live.

[midnightpulp]

"Your asking the wrong question in this specific example - the question is how often should you call when he bets. In practice, you should probably bet about never vs. a good tag here - if he folds, you had the best hand anyway, and if he calls you are so beat by 98% of his range. So the only way to get value here is to induce a bluff. This is a pretty board and opponent dependent read whether to check with the intention of folding or checking with the intention of calling. If your Heisenberg, you might get really fancy and check with the intention of bluffraising, but I never feel like I have close to a good enough read to try this one."

You said we should bet just about never vs. TAG in this instance, and that's of course true. Guess what I'm trying to ask is if it's worth it to occasionally bet a hand that we know is wrong to bet to manipulate him into thinking our bluffing range is wider than it actually is and he pays off more in future hands.

For example, you see in a lot of hand examples of a TAG going to the river with a very marginal hand against another TAG. This marginal hand has good equity against the TAGs flop betting range and turn betting range, but then falls flat against the TAGs river value betting range. So usually the advice is to fold, which is correct.

That's where protecting your good hands with bluffs comes into play. And I'm wondering how the better players on here manipulate other good players.

[midnightpulp]

"I don't know what exactly you're asking for regarding protecting value bets & raises w/ a range of hands."

Basically, appearing looser than you actually are so you get paid off with a wider range of hands by a decent player.

If we're caught betting that AJ or something even worse, the TAG might be inclined to loosen up his future calling standards.

This is easy in concept, and we all know there's value in establishing such an image. I'm asking how you vets at 5-10 and 10-20, where's there's more rocks and TAGs, employ the concept, if you even employ it.