Fórum de Poker

I write and talk about this all the time.

I obviously believe that a two-way bet exists.

This bet is basically merging your range. Your range exists as a spectrum from A-Z, for example, and so does his. In any given situation, he'll bet a certain % on the river- for people not on a high level, they'll bet A-E for value, check, F-0 becuase it has moderate showdown value, and bet P-Z as a bluff. These letters are completely randomly assigned and vary by opponent (note that some opponents will check behind a hand with no showdown value giving up obviously, but leave it as these ranges for the example).

So this guy betting strong hands and bluffs is pretty easy to figure out and play against, because you'll be able to call with an exact range (say, A-P, the strongest part of your range) when you think he is bluffing, and fold your medium strength hands and hands with no showdown value (say F-Z in this example).

However, ranges are continuous (obviously, there are points in hand ranges, but not chunks- that is, second pair top kicker, second pair second kicker, second pair third kicker, are ranked a notch above each other, but there are so many of them that they are nearly continuous). When people make bets, we assign what range of hands they would make that bet with, so that at the end of the hand we have an idea where they are and can act accordingly. That much is very obvious. However, when we get to the river, there are many times that we're not sure exactly where we are. Many people just say "we're lost, we don't know where we are." That HAS to happen at times in poker games; people at higher stakes play their hands in deceptive manners so that when you get to the end, you're just not sure if they're slowplaying or calling you down light.

One simple example is this (note this will be oversimplified, but I believe Jason Strasser played a hand like this): You have second pair heads up, let's assume there was a draw on the flop, and it missed on the river. Your opponent checks to you on all three streets, and you bet 2/3-3/4 of the pot on all of them.

When your opponent calls you down with fourth pair, you win.

When your opponent calls you down with top pair weak kicker, you lose.

Some people check here; and checking certainly can't be terrible. However, it makes you much too easy to play against (a lot of this is metagame related, and very hard to explain as a generalization). Therefore, this bet might be neutral in expected value because the frequency that you get called by a worse hand and the frequency that you get called by a better hand somewhat evens itself out.

So, if the middle of your range is of moderate showdown value on the river (F-O, let's say), and you have the right image, your opponent is on the right level, etc., then you should probably go ahead and bet F 90% of the time, G 80%, H 70%, etc. as the strength of your hand decreases. All of these things have many other factors to consider, and placing this in an actual theory post rather than the experience of merging your range is difficult to make someone comprehend. I mean, some people will read this post and never understand it, and some people do it naturally without understanding reasoning behind it.

So then, when you're merging your range, sometimes you will end up "value bluffing." I believe this to be true, whether or not people agree in terminology. Sometimes you are betting for value, and sometimes you are bluffing. You don't exactly know which you're doing- but if you feel like you beat the majority of his range, you bet (in this case, it is primarily for value). However, since we've already established we don't know his exact range, there are going to be times that we bet and he's got a better hand and folds, and there are times that we bet and he's got a better hand and calls, and there are times that we bet and he's got a worse hand and folds, and there are times that we bet that he's got a worse hand and calls.

It's really that simple.

I mean, here's a hand that is a pretty good example:

You have JJ and raise the button, you get 3-bet, and it's HU to the flop.

The flop is Q Q 7. He bets 2/3, you just call.

Turn is a 2. He bet's 2/3, you call.

River is a 7. He shoves.

Now, normally there will be general thoughts about this hand: pairs 7 got counterfeited, he might think you're weak since you didn't put in a raise before the river, etc. However, if he is merging his range, then you can no longer just say "here I think he's bluffing, I call," or "here I think he's got it, I fold." The reason is that sometimes you will fold, and he'll be like "LOL I have TT I was shoving for value!" and sometimes you'll call and he'll be like "LOL KK ship it bitch."

The point is, if people are on a high level, they aren't always going to know where each other is. If you're playing against some donks at low stakes, you'll know "people always play KK/QQ this way when an A comes on the board" and "people always check behind when this river comes scary and never v-bet the hand I thought they had- therefore they must be bluffing."

But as you move up, that is not the case. The higher level of thought, the more people will merge their range and stumble upon value bluffs.

Now, where there is confusion is in the intent and the result. The confusion causes the term value bluff to be termed when good players are merging their range.

by:aejones

Tinhas era traduzido isto, que nao me apetece ler isto tudo em ingles xD

p.s: Muito bom, embora a parte dos ranges AZ sejam algo confusos a primeira leitura

por exemplo, imagina-te num spot simples, onde so podes raisar ou foldar. Qualquer 4bet é allin. HU BTW.

Só existem 4 maos: AA KK 83 72

O BU abre, o BB 3 bet. Obvio que o range de 3bet da bb ta polarizado (83 72 bluffs, AA KK value). O BU vai explorar esse range atraves do EV, que acaba por ser even.

Mas agora introduzimos mais 2 maos:99 1010

Neste spot, acontece a mesma situação. Mas agora, se o BU 4betar 1010, ta a "merging" o seu range porque:

- quer fazer foldar o KK, logo por aqui é um bluff;

- quer levar call de 99, o qual funciona como bluff buster de 83 e 72, logo é value;

Agora imaginem que eles dáo so call a 3bet com 99 e 1010 e 4 beta as outras maos. O range de 4bet dele tá novamente polarizado. Mas num flop de 45Q, quem vai cometer mais erros? o original 3betor ou o BU? Obviamente que quem tem aqui um range polarizado passa a ser a BB (Bluffs 83 72 e value AA KK), que sabe sempre onde está na mão, enquanto que o BU, tem de jogar guessing games. E vai ser bastante fácil a bb ajustar-se, pois embora os ranges de 4bet do BU estejam polarizados, os de call sao bem definidos (a unica solução de bluff do bu e repolarizar em flops tipo xx9 xx10).

Transportando para 1 situação HU.

O BU raisa os seus standard 3x e a bb da call. Flop vem Q75. O BU tem um range de cbet balançado entre draws e 2pair,set,tpair. Será mais fácil ao BB ajustar-se a este range DRAWS _______"NUTS" ou a um range de DRAWS___MIDDLE PAIRS___"NUTS"?. Se o BU cbetar 7J, esta a emergir o range:

- Ta a armar 3 barris no caso de a turn vir por exemplo A, ou seja scary cards. Ou seja, está a bluffar;

- Ta a tirar value de 86,98,96,a5,k5,73,72,74,76,78,79,710;

Noutro exemplo:

99 raise bb call:

Flop: 6j7 com 2 copas. Cbet bb call. turn 5x, bet bb call. river 2x.??

Aqui por exemplo, 1 overbet polarizada poderia ser Busted flush&str8 draws_____84,89,73. Uma overbet com merged range, teria essas maos, mas tambem o 99. Ele tá a apostar pa value, pois com tantos draws, pode levar um call de um bluff catcher como 6A,7A,88,etc. Tambem ta a apostar para bluffar maos como Jx,1010 p.exemplo. Quando o BU overbeta este spot nao sabe se está exatamente a dar value ou bluff, mas sim que as vezes funciona x e outras y.

(tive a rever hh durrr vs blom e reparei que blom n tava muito polarizado, mas mais po merge)

nem em portugues, quanto mais em ingles!

polarizar só me lembra as áulas de electricidade

agrada-me ver que o MM estuda bastante o jogo(eu não tenho conseguido) para quem não lia livros de poker no ínicio, e agora até dá umas aulas .
Bom trabalho MM keep going!

ty..xD..

Mas este nao foi de um livro. Mas por acaso tive a ler partes do "let there be range" do cts e tmb partes do do balungo., aconselho muito