Quick Question

[Matt Flynn]

Mason,

Thanks for the reply. I'd appreciate your help understanding this.

You said: "Game Theory tells us that against opponents who play correctly we should bluff more in small pots that in large ones (as long as the bet is the same size). This seems to imply the opposite of what you are suggesting."

However, raising the blinds isn't bluffing. At worst it's semibluffing. You will end up having a higher bluff:nonbluff _ratio_, but that's in large part because your equity is reduced by the rake, reducing the non-bluff value of your holdings.

The threshold you set for raising is all situations where you believe EV is > 0, with a lot of the equity on marginal raising hands coming from stealing the blinds. If 0.45 small bets are taken from the pot, your EV drops. If the blinds do not adjust at all, all of your marginal raises now become negative EV. So you should play tighter.

Assume the blinds adjust appropriately. Can you argue why collectively they make a larger adjustment than you do?

Put another way, equity goes down across the board. All players lose. So therefore your EV for raising must decrease unless the blinds collectively give up enough additional equity to overcome the loss of the $72. Which they won't if they are adjusting optimally. So EV goes down across the board.

With the lower EV, your marginal hands become negative EV. So don't you have to reduce the number of raising hands?

And specifically, yes, in your new game theoretic setpoint you WILL be bluffing more PROPORTIONALLY, but does that mean you are bluffing more absolutely? Not if your equity goes down across the board, forcing you to play tighter.

Any thoughts? What'd I miss?

Matt