100/200 bluff hand

[cartman]

[ QUOTE ]
Lets say he never folds an ace, but he folds all other non pocket pair hands.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hi Gabe,

If this assumption is accurate, then your bluff raise is immensely +EV.

If we use a hand range of A4+, any two 9 or higher, 22+, K7s, K6s, Q8s, J8s, and T8s, then by my quick calculations there are 359 possible combinations that he could hold:

50 combinations that give him an overpair or better on the turn
24 combinations that give him a pocket pair 33-66
140 combinations that give him Ace high without a full house
145 other combinations that give him worse than Ace high


So if he folds all 145 in the "other" category, that means there is a 40.4% chance that he will fold immediately to your turn raise. His turn bet brings the pot to 6.5BB, so you are getting 6.5:2 or 3.25:1 on a proposition that will succeed 40% of the time. That means that even if you were drawing completely dead when he didn't fold, your raise would still be a great idea!

Cartman

[flawless_victory]

[ QUOTE ]
The only thing you have going for you is the fact that he will probably think "theres no way this guy is retarded enough to try and bluff me on this board"

[/ QUOTE ]
hysterical.

[kidcolin]

Cartman,

I'm usually a big fan of your mathematical analysis, but I think it's off here. When dealing with the "playing back" factor, any straight up math that doesn't include weightings is very unreliable. AA-55 is probably always 3-betting.. T8s, K7s, T9o are only "sometimes" and not necessarily a majority of the time.

[smurfitup]

has he seen you raise the turn on similar boards? would he call the turn w/ ace high and fold to a river club or k? i think you have to take these thoughts into consideration when making that raise... once you raise the turn, he'll probably put you on a range of hands (k high, clubs, air)... so i think if you are making this turn raise, you should be willing to follow through on the river if one of those scards hits, not only if it's just a j or 9. overall, though, i think this play is -ev in terms of the actual hand, but probably +ev for meta-game purposes since players will know they can't get to showdown cheaply against you and might not play back as much. interesting hand.

[baronzeus]

i dont like it...you're putting in 3BB to win a 6BB pot (assuming you are following through--which i think you have to since he might call with two overs here to try to hit a 6 outer given 9:1) and so he has to fold 1/3 of the time--which i dont think he does. he'll call with any pocket pair and he'll call with any A high hand, which are more than 2/3 of his range IMO.


edit: forgot to consider that sometimes you suck out by hitting a 6 outer. still think its somewhat -EV though.

[cartman]

[ QUOTE ]
Cartman,

I'm usually a big fan of your mathematical analysis, but I think it's off here. When dealing with the "playing back" factor, any straight up math that doesn't include weightings is very unreliable. AA-55 is probably always 3-betting.. T8s, K7s, T9o are only "sometimes" and not necessarily a majority of the time.

[/ QUOTE ]

You'll have to talk to ggbman about the hand range because he is the one that provided it in the original post. The only influence I had was the "occasional random stuff like K7s" part. For that part I included A2s, A3s, K7s, K6s, Q8s, J8s, and T8s. It is always possible that my calculations are off, but given ggbman's estimate of his opponent's hand range, this is not really a close call. Which came as a real surprise to me because I never think to bluff here. Then again, I don't know if my typical opponent would fold even 98 to this turn raise.

Cartman

[kidcolin]

It's not really the range that bums me out, it's the non-weighting. Even if T8s is in his range, I doubt he's playing back with it 100% of the time.

[ggbman]

I suck at math. Obviously some of the things in his "other" range are not nearly as likely as some other holdings, they would comprise his hand only a small percentage of the time. However, the math cartman presented makes me believe there is a chance this is a good play. (But it still could suck) Thanks for the math Cartman, i am waaaay to dumb for that.

[cartman]

[ QUOTE ]
It's not really the range that bums me out, it's the non-weighting. Even if T8s is in his range, I doubt he's playing back with it 100% of the time.

[/ QUOTE ]

I understand your concern, but those hands are really a minor factor here. Even if I went to the extreme of completely eliminate all the "occasional random stuff like K7s, etc" hands, thus weighting them as zero, that only knocks out 19 combinations from the "other" category that ggbman said he would fold but also knocks out 4 full house combinations. So now instead of the opponent folding 145/359 = 40.4% he is folding 126/336 = 37.5%. It is still hugely +EV. It is possible that ggbman didn't mean that all combinations in the core hand range that he provided--even without the "occasional stuff" part--were to be equally weighted, but if that is the case then I would need him to provide the appropriate weights. If you have a set of weighting parameters that you would like to test, I will be happy to provide you with some amended calculations.

Cartman

[Subfallen]

[ QUOTE ]
I suck at math. Obviously some of the things in his "other" range are not nearly as likely as some other holdings, they would comprise his hand only a small percentage of the time. However, the math cartman presented makes me believe there is a chance this is a good play. (But it still could suck) Thanks for the math Cartman, i am waaaay to dumb for that.

[/ QUOTE ]

I wish I was as dumb as you. [img]/images/graemlins/frown.gif[/img]