What’s Your Play Follow-Up

I know I promised earlier this week that I’d follow-up with more on optimal multi-street bluffing frequency. It proved to be a more thorny problem than I anticipated, and while I still don’t have a definitive answer, you’ll get a chance to hear me discuss the problem with two very smart math guys on the upcoming Episode 45 of the podcast.

I received some questions about this post the answers to which might be interesting to you, so I’m going to post them here.

If I read it correctly, it says you should bet (value + bluffs) the same percentage of your range that you offer pot odds to your opponent.

Or does it say you should BLUFF the same percentage of your range that you offer pot odds to your opponent?

If I pot the river, I offer 2-1 to my opponent.

Does this mean that I should bet 33% of my range regardless of my actual cards this time?

If my value hands only represent 20% of my range, then I should bluff with 13% of my range?

If I bet 50% of the pot, I offer 3-1 and should bet 25% of my range, meaning I should be bluffing only 5% of the time.

Or does it mean that I should be bluffing 33% of the time and value betting 67% of the time (when I choose to bet pot on the river)?

And if I bet 50% of the pot, I offer 3-1 and should be bluffing 25% of the time and value betting 75% of the time (when I choose to bet half pot)?

Or does it mean you should bet 33% and 25% of my misses respectively, exactly equal to the pot odds I offer my opponent to call?

Sklansky article says with a 40% chance to beat the bluff catcher, you should bet 60% of your hands (made hands and 1/3 of your misses).

Is his reference to 1/3 of misses the number that should be equal to the pot odds (regardless of the percentage of winning made hands)?

Can you clarify the logic or game theory for me?

BTW, I am one of those players who probably would have folded the flop on a paired board (I know this is likely too passive).

I love the way you played this hand and it is an example of the kind of pressure you put on the table that I seldom do.

It is clear that I don’t bluff enough.

Good question. It’s a tricky subject that is a little more complicated than I’m making it, because we’re only talking about balancing in a very specific case where your bluffs have 0% equity and your value hands 100% equity. When your opponent has the option to raise and the next card can change the equities, things get more complicated. But the short answer to your question is that when you are betting a range of nuts (100% equity) and bluffs (0% equity) giving your opponent 2:1 pot odds, you should have 2 value hands for every 1 bluff. Because it’s the river, you don’t have to worry about what’s happening with your checking range.

I’ve never actually tried to count combos and bluff with absolutely optimal frequency at the table. It’s more just a matter of having an idea of what GTO play looks like, so that I can spot exploitable tendencies from my opponents or be aware of how I myself could be exploited and whether my opponents are actually capable of doing those things.

Just because you aren’t bluffing with game-theoretically optimal frequency doesn’t necessarily mean you aren’t bluffing enough. Calling too much is perhaps the single most common mistake people make in poker, so when in doubt, erring on the side of bluffing less or even not at all against certain players makes sense.

1 thought on “What’s Your Play Follow-Up”

  1. Man I really wish I understood this better. I feel like an idiot for not getting it or maybe my brain just needs a break for a while (just watched like 4 poker vids in a row). I’ll try again later.

    Look forward to the podcast discussion.

Comments are closed.