First of all great job,i appreciate this, It really took several views to put it all together. If we simplify this conception for daily use, am i right if i suppose that we should make adjustments to our flop check-raise range as BB and make XR more with strong made hands such as top pair top kicker, dopers, sets, overpairs vs HJ cbet, and let's say never XR with OESD and FD for example, as well as we increase our cbet with air as a HJ. And also speaking about that part of the concept that described the situation on the river, we need to be focus to define if we have or not a sufficient (25%) amount of show down value to decide whether we still want to play checkback or not, if I understand correctly, then if we want to bluff with a part of the range that is still 25%, then we must choose the right sizing, namely this size to get 50% or more folds. for example potbet
Thanks for the great video! One follow-up question that I’ve been thinking about is how to choose which specific hands to defend, say for a MDF of 25%. Theoretically, it seems like we should calculate where our exact holding in a given hand fits into our entire range that we could have in that spot, and call at least the top 25% EV hands in that range. However that threshold seems hard to calculate, and on the other end a simple alternative might just be something like look at the seconds hand of your watch and call if it’s between 0-15 seconds. A video going into how to implement these %s in practice would be great!
@@gesus.christ99Nah, it's pretty useful if you're facing skilled players who also respect you as a skilled player. You lean towards being LAGish if you play GTO-like, so if your opponent is capable of making bluffs even in medium to large pots, you do still need to call with crap hands a small portion of the time. It's my favorite exploit against non-GTOish players since I get free pots for making a third or quarter pot sized bet with my busted backdoors and low high card hands. Most people just assume you've got the goods and are milking if you go three streets, and are too scared/nitty to look you up without a strong hand
you guys didn't understand the plot... MDF will allways exist. if your oponents can't bluff enough they are letting you realize your equity, otherwise if they aren't defending enough you are making more profit and can exploit a lot. But you need to unsterstand the theory and the benefits of position to exploit. its not a fixed thing it's something adjustable
Great video! Could you explain why gto over-defends vs raise but defends at mdf (no over-defending) in a SRP IP? Isn't the same logic applicable to SRP situations since OP's bluffs also have equity > 0 and could therefore realize additional equity on later streets? An example where IP is overdefending in a SRP is BTN vs a BB donk bet on 764r. Is the gto continuing frequency only determined by bluffs having equity > 0 or does range distribution (polarised/condensed, equity advantage, etc.) or other factors also have a significant impact ?
The theory says to make their bluffs indifferent. Consider these two scenarios: 1) If you're facing a bet, that means your opponent's bluffs had to choose between a bet, and a (+EV) check. 2) If you're facing a raise, that means your opponent's bluffs had to choose between a raise, and a (0 EV) fold.
@@GTOWizard That makes sense. Thank you for your reply! Regarding the second part of my question: Is BTN overdefending BB's donk bet on 764r because BB's check has lower EV on that specific flop than on the average flop? And therefore BTN has to overdefend (compared to naive MDF) to make BB's bluffs less profitable?
I am confused about True MDF around 19:00. How can the gto fold percentage seemingly only depend on the pot odds? Wouldn't it also depend on the hand you have? For example if you have the absolute best possible hand in some given position and you know that you can not be beat, no matter what your opponent has (as an extreme example), then the pot odds don't matter at all and your fold percentage should be 0% right? So in this sense I don't understand how the true folding frequency can make sense if it only depends on pot odds.
On the reraise to 9bb example, I would think that the alpha is 7.5/15 = 0.5 and mdc = 1- alpha = 0.5. This is because the HJ already has 1.5 chips in. Is this true?
it seems XR pot odds are a function of pot size too, so the pot odds differ depending on the pot size...so xr100 will lay different pot odds MPvBB vs BUvBB
Alpha is Risk/(Risk + Reward) Raiser is risking 9. Reward is the 6 BB invested. So 9/(9 + 6)= 60% I was also thrown off at first by the calculation. But I was thrown off by the MDF result which I initially assumed should be 50%. But while a pot sized bet and a pot sized raise will have the same pot odds, they'll have a different MDF, apparently.
@@timkinner1814 yeah i think it's the differing pot sizes that appear convoluted, whereas a "1bet is always just 1-alpha". This is why XR require more FE than a cB
This is really good material ,thanks tombos!. I got just one question ,so,in pretty close situations of value betting ,we would strongly need to consider and compare the ev of betting vs the ev of checking ,cause in order for our valuebet to be the preferred alternative we still need to have some fold equity,even when we are betting for value.So,if the rival folds less than what is required,that means he is allocating those hands that he didn't fold into the calling or raising range,affecting our ev in such a way that we would prefer to check instead. Is there any aproximate idea of how or in which manner our ev would be affected?
Great question! The basic formula is shown at 15:07, and a short visual explanation on value betting is shown at 17:07 If you're looking for more detail, I'd recommend trying this quiz: gtowizard.com/daily-dose-gto/?ddose=51 Or reading this article about expected value: blog.gtowizard.com/what-is-expected-value-in-poker/
Probably am overlooking something obvious but why does the Fold pct. model for bluffing-with-equity assume that bettor loses whenever called? Why not assume that EV when called is 1.5(pot)(equity)? Or put differently, why assume opponent never calls w/ worse hand? If opponent could call w/ worse hand, the necessary Fold % is, of course, lower.
I do not fully understand, why on the raise is backwards... (As BB)On flop defense, we know villain worst hands, have some equity, therefore as BB we can afford to overfold. (as BTN) vs XR, we know villain bluff have some equity , thefore (i will think) i can afford to overfold, but in this case , is the contrary, i need to overdefend... I do not understand :(
The reason why big blind can overfold is the button already raise 2.5bb, if you defend with mdf, overall ev of a 0% equity bluff will be equal to -2.5bb. Letting the button profit a little bit won't be so problematic because the button still cannot raise any two cards and bluff you away. I think the explanation in the video is not so correct. Your doubt is totally reasonable.
Facing a checkraise, if you defend with mdf, bluff will still able to be profitable since bluff has equity on the flop and turn. You cannot afford overfolding if bluffs have equity.
@@chaoz3568 i do not see, how is different vs a flop cbet, as explained on the video, the first part, even the worst part of the PFR range has some equity, therefore BB can overfold according to mda.
@@modeob88 but he also mentioned that BB against SB c-bet is defending close to MDF, that’s because BB is in position over SB so he can afford to realize more equity. the opposite when BB faces a BTN c-bet is also true, he is out of position which means he won't realize equity as BB vs SB.
@@modeob88 No thats not the case. The equation holds true assuming we are defending with a raise/fold range. But in reality we will not raise that much due to the fear of reraising (an exploit) (+its a losing play anyways) and will instead call. Notice calling actually let the opponent realize some equity. Not to mention when their hand actually improve to the nuts, we have to call with some hands, giving the opponent implied odds. Therefore we have to call wider in order to make the opponent indifferent to bluffing and checking.
But is it really just me who noticed that at the end it says that we defend against a raise, and in the procedure we fold. We have protection of 1-33% = 67% for a pot-sized raise, and according to the formula 1-33% * 1.61 = 46%, we overfold and do not overdefend)
You overdefend relative to MDF. 19:52 here MDF would have you defend 40% and fold 60%= (10.9/18.2). However, the golden ratio approximation estimates you should defend 46% and fold 54%.
You state that GTO "overdefends" relative to MDF against raises. But am I wrong that the "golden ratio x pot odds" formula results in *underdefending relative to MDF* for a 1/2 pot raise? You say the fold % is 0.4 for a raise of that size. That's a 60% defend. The MDF for a 0.5 pot raise is 67%. Same for full pot raise: MDF is 50%; golden-ratio is 45. ... What am I misunderstanding? Thanks!
The misunderstanding is that the villain IS NOT risking 50% pot to win 100% pot, but risking more, therefore your (naive) MDF is lower. For instance, if you bet 1/3 (1.8bb) into a 5.5bb pot, the pot is now 7.3bb. If the opponent raises 50% pot, it means that he raises to 1.8bb PLUS 50% of (7.3+1.8) = 1.8 + 4.55 = 6.35bb So he is risking 6.35bb to win 6.35+7.3 = 13.65. Alpha then is 46.5 % so (naive) MDF is 54.5% < 60 %
This is a common misconception about how MDF works facing a raise. MrMiguelChaves comment explains it well. You can also watch this video to learn more. ua-cam.com/video/9g95nWVU8-M/v-deo.htmlsi=F257G01DHzRxeWPk
I haven't figured out what's going on with the graph at 15:25 yet, but it's definitely not what you say it is. You have the EV of what you say is a value bet as being less than the EV of checking, for instance.
Yes that can happen. If betting just folds out worse hands and mostly gets called by better, then the EV of checking can be higher than the EV of betting. This is a classic example of why betting too thin can be problematic.
Yes. GTO overdefends facing a raise in or out of position, before the river. The alternative is folding, so a bluff raise only needs to be better than 0EV to be playable. If the IP player defends exactly MDF facing a raise, then the OOP player can just bluff-raise everything that has any piece of the board facing a bet. The way to think about it is that you could fold and win 0, or bluff raise, break even on that raise, then freeroll your future street equity.
@@GTOWizard is it correct to assume that another reason thats happening is that heros continue range has hands in it, that want to bluff (and do so profitably) on later streets, making heros continue range consisting out of more bluffs on the flop, lesser bluffs on the turn and finally closest to "naive MDF" by the river (where bluffs have no additional equity and basically becoming more pure relying only on fold equity)?
Also.. what if you "view" the risk the raiser puts out in two parts, where the first part completes the initial bet (in your example 1,5bb) taking it out of the classic risk/reward calculation and making it kind of a "price" to participate further in the pot and the second part of the raise (wich would then be 7,5bb) then the "real risk" wich would then be exactly a "potsized" bet and lead to a new risk/reward calculation "7,5/(1,5+4,5+1,5)" wich then would equal to 50% and also fit perfectly in the "OOP-slightly-overfolding-to-MDF pattern"
So I’m a bit confused as to why you would need you bluffs to have a higher folding frequency if you actually have more checking equity (ie if you are actually more likely to win even if they do call, why wouldn’t you actually be able to get fewer bluffs through in order for them to be profitable than if you had a true naive bluff, where you were dead if they called?). Is it just because you are now risking more money to realize that same equity with a bet (ie bluff) as you have with simply a check?
As I understand it, it is beacuse you are bluffing into a part of villain range that you already were winning by checking. This part of the range folds anyway, you never win even if they do call, so you cannot extract value by betting it. So now you need an extra percentage of folds from villan's range in order to maintain the percentage required for your bluff to be profitable, cos this bluff retains some equity by checking sometimes. To illustrate better, if you are betting with a hand with good checking equity but that's never called by worst when bet, you'd need enourmous fold equity for it to have the same ev than checking. I don't know I explained myself, english is not my main language and this concepts are abstract enough.
Yes, I think your last sentence shows you understand the concept. If the value of checking is higher, then you need more incentive to turn your hand into a bluff. The goal being to take the highest EV action. If EV (Check) = 0.25 Then EV (Bluff) >= 0.25 in order for bluffing to be a viable option
no. The only reason position affects MDF is because when you're in position on earlier streets you are more likely to realize the equity your hand is worth or even over-realize your equity. This is because you can apply pressure with bluffs and are more easily able to value bet and bluff as the texture of the flop changes on later streets, as you get to see how your opponent reacts first.
It is augmented by the EV of the alternative option (checking or folding), and the EV when you get called (or raised). Those inputs can be influenced by postflop variables like position, stack depth and texture.
I get why the IP player folds less than MDF vs a check-raise. But then there’s a graph showing that BB defends at exactly MDF vs a SB c-bet. Why doesn’t BB overdefend? What’s different about the latter scenario?
The difference is the alternative option. When bluff-raising, your alternative option is to fold (0EV). This "lowers the bar" for bluffing, since it only needs to be better than 0. Conversely, when bluff-betting, your alternative option is checking (still slightly +EV). This raises the bar for bluffing, since it needs to be better than a +EV check.
@@djm751 its due to the inherent disadvantage of the BBvSB ranges. He simply has too many weaks to be able to over defend without giving up EV to SB by doing so.
It's a bit high. As the other comment says, it depends on the size of the c-bet. Nowadays people tend to bet much smaller on the flop compared to when PT4 published their leaktracker stats, meaning optimal defense will likely be wider.
How does one utilize this to improve their poker game though without spending a bunch of hours doing tedious work? Seems relatively inefficient from my perspective.
That is why he said at the end that it would be more useful for private coaching viewersn , considering that the players who can figure out or at least estimate equity of his hand vs range, normally are players who already have a good knowledge of advanced poker concepts, while for low stakes UA-camrs viewers, it surely will be a bit alien.
I think you've misunderstood the video. No one is claiming that "GTO is wrong". The video explains why oversimplified equations like Naive MDF fail to model the true complexity of the game.
You were saying that GTO overcalls, overfolds, under defends, etc. Then that's not GTO, that's what people perceived as GTO and you were trying to explain how to exploit it. My point is that, if you are going to use the word GTO and imply that its making incorrect decision or action in the context that its Naive MDF, then its misleading. GTO simply can't be Naive MDF because its already optimal. To use False GTO and Correct GTO might be more accurate and clearer way to get the point across.@@GTOWizard
@@StrongwillGameTheory You have it backwards. No one is claiming that the GTO strategy is making mistakes. No one has claimed that GTO strategy is over or under-defending relative to optimal strategy. I'm saying that GTO over or under-defends, relative to the naive MDF calculation. The GTO strategy is obviously correct, the naive MDF calculation is not. This video attempts to explain why that difference exists. I recommend watching the end of the video for a further explanation.
After watching this video, do you need to defend more or less?
Wayyyy less 😅
Depends on position
Apparently more vs raises postflop
First of all great job,i appreciate this, It really took several views to put it all together. If we simplify this conception for daily use, am i right if i suppose that we should make adjustments to our flop check-raise range as BB and make XR more with strong made hands such as top pair top kicker, dopers, sets, overpairs vs HJ cbet, and let's say never XR with OESD and FD for example, as well as we increase our cbet with air as a HJ. And also speaking about that part of the concept that described the situation on the river, we need to be focus to define if we have or not a sufficient (25%) amount of show down value to decide whether we still want to play checkback or not, if I understand correctly, then if we want to bluff with a part of the range that is still 25%, then we must choose the right sizing, namely this size to get 50% or more folds. for example potbet
IP we defend = MDF
OOP we defend < MDF
vs a raise we defend > MDF
correct?
Your graphs and the way you visualize these concepts is excellent - thanks!
Thanks for the great video! One follow-up question that I’ve been thinking about is how to choose which specific hands to defend, say for a MDF of 25%. Theoretically, it seems like we should calculate where our exact holding in a given hand fits into our entire range that we could have in that spot, and call at least the top 25% EV hands in that range. However that threshold seems hard to calculate, and on the other end a simple alternative might just be something like look at the seconds hand of your watch and call if it’s between 0-15 seconds. A video going into how to implement these %s in practice would be great!
Thanks for the video idea!
this video is pure gold....amazing job
Took me a few watches of this video - I get it now! Great stuff!
I haven't seen the video yet but I can bet it's MDF 😂
MDF is bullshit because my opponent is not profitably bluffing if i fold 87 on AA792 facing a ton of aggression
@@gesus.christ99 GTO is a calling station. Defend like GTO at low mid stakes and you will get crushed
He mentions MDF 2 seconds into the video
@@gesus.christ99Nah, it's pretty useful if you're facing skilled players who also respect you as a skilled player. You lean towards being LAGish if you play GTO-like, so if your opponent is capable of making bluffs even in medium to large pots, you do still need to call with crap hands a small portion of the time.
It's my favorite exploit against non-GTOish players since I get free pots for making a third or quarter pot sized bet with my busted backdoors and low high card hands. Most people just assume you've got the goods and are milking if you go three streets, and are too scared/nitty to look you up without a strong hand
you guys didn't understand the plot... MDF will allways exist. if your oponents can't bluff enough they are letting you realize your equity, otherwise if they aren't defending enough you are making more profit and can exploit a lot. But you need to unsterstand the theory and the benefits of position to exploit. its not a fixed thing it's something adjustable
Great video!
Could you explain why gto over-defends vs raise but defends at mdf (no over-defending) in a SRP IP? Isn't the same logic applicable to SRP situations since OP's bluffs also have equity > 0 and could therefore realize additional equity on later streets? An example where IP is overdefending in a SRP is BTN vs a BB donk bet on 764r. Is the gto continuing frequency only determined by bluffs having equity > 0 or does range distribution (polarised/condensed, equity advantage, etc.) or other factors also have a significant impact ?
The theory says to make their bluffs indifferent. Consider these two scenarios:
1) If you're facing a bet, that means your opponent's bluffs had to choose between a bet, and a (+EV) check.
2) If you're facing a raise, that means your opponent's bluffs had to choose between a raise, and a (0 EV) fold.
@@GTOWizard That makes sense. Thank you for your reply!
Regarding the second part of my question: Is BTN overdefending BB's donk bet on 764r because BB's check has lower EV on that specific flop than on the average flop? And therefore BTN has to overdefend (compared to naive MDF) to make BB's bluffs less profitable?
I am confused about True MDF around 19:00. How can the gto fold percentage seemingly only depend on the pot odds? Wouldn't it also depend on the hand you have? For example if you have the absolute best possible hand in some given position and you know that you can not be beat, no matter what your opponent has (as an extreme example), then the pot odds don't matter at all and your fold percentage should be 0% right? So in this sense I don't understand how the true folding frequency can make sense if it only depends on pot odds.
If you got a bluffcatcher. If you got the nuts as you say you should obv call and raise
Great quality content, keep up that work ethic
On the reraise to 9bb example, I would think that the alpha is 7.5/15 = 0.5 and mdc = 1- alpha = 0.5. This is because the HJ already has 1.5 chips in. Is this true?
I calculate the same
it seems XR pot odds are a function of pot size too, so the pot odds differ depending on the pot size...so xr100 will lay different pot odds MPvBB vs BUvBB
Alpha is Risk/(Risk + Reward)
Raiser is risking 9.
Reward is the 6 BB invested.
So 9/(9 + 6)= 60%
I was also thrown off at first by the calculation. But I was thrown off by the MDF result which I initially assumed should be 50%. But while a pot sized bet and a pot sized raise will have the same pot odds, they'll have a different MDF, apparently.
@@timkinner1814 yeah i think it's the differing pot sizes that appear convoluted, whereas a "1bet is always just 1-alpha". This is why XR require more FE than a cB
That is correct, @timkinner1814
This is really good material ,thanks tombos!. I got just one question ,so,in pretty close situations of value betting ,we would strongly need to consider and compare the ev of betting vs the ev of checking ,cause in order for our valuebet to be the preferred alternative we still need to have some fold equity,even when we are betting for value.So,if the rival folds less than what is required,that means he is allocating those hands that he didn't fold into the calling or raising range,affecting our ev in such a way that we would prefer to check instead. Is there any aproximate idea of how or in which manner our ev would be affected?
Great question! The basic formula is shown at 15:07, and a short visual explanation on value betting is shown at 17:07
If you're looking for more detail, I'd recommend trying this quiz: gtowizard.com/daily-dose-gto/?ddose=51
Or reading this article about expected value: blog.gtowizard.com/what-is-expected-value-in-poker/
thanks a lot! 😁@@GTOWizard
Probably am overlooking something obvious but why does the Fold pct. model for bluffing-with-equity assume that bettor loses whenever called? Why not assume that EV when called is 1.5(pot)(equity)? Or put differently, why assume opponent never calls w/ worse hand? If opponent could call w/ worse hand, the necessary Fold % is, of course, lower.
It doesn't. You can just plug in a higher EV when called to model semibluffs, in which case you're right, less fold equity is needed.
20:09 that's wild. I don't think it has any relevance to poker playing math but as a numbers nerd, cool.
I do not fully understand, why on the raise is backwards...
(As BB)On flop defense, we know villain worst hands, have some equity, therefore as BB we can afford to overfold.
(as BTN) vs XR, we know villain bluff have some equity , thefore (i will think) i can afford to overfold, but in this case , is the contrary, i need to overdefend...
I do not understand :(
The reason why big blind can overfold is the button already raise 2.5bb, if you defend with mdf, overall ev of a 0% equity bluff will be equal to -2.5bb. Letting the button profit a little bit won't be so problematic because the button still cannot raise any two cards and bluff you away. I think the explanation in the video is not so correct. Your doubt is totally reasonable.
Facing a checkraise, if you defend with mdf, bluff will still able to be profitable since bluff has equity on the flop and turn. You cannot afford overfolding if bluffs have equity.
@@chaoz3568 i do not see, how is different vs a flop cbet, as explained on the video, the first part, even the worst part of the PFR range has some equity, therefore BB can overfold according to mda.
@@modeob88 but he also mentioned that BB against SB c-bet is defending close to MDF, that’s because BB is in position over SB so he can afford to realize more equity. the opposite when BB faces a BTN c-bet is also true, he is out of position which means he won't realize equity as BB vs SB.
@@modeob88 No thats not the case. The equation holds true assuming we are defending with a raise/fold range. But in reality we will not raise that much due to the fear of reraising (an exploit) (+its a losing play anyways) and will instead call. Notice calling actually let the opponent realize some equity. Not to mention when their hand actually improve to the nuts, we have to call with some hands, giving the opponent implied odds. Therefore we have to call wider in order to make the opponent indifferent to bluffing and checking.
But is it really just me who noticed that at the end it says that we defend against a raise, and in the procedure we fold. We have protection of 1-33% = 67% for a pot-sized raise, and according to the formula 1-33% * 1.61 = 46%, we overfold and do not overdefend)
You overdefend relative to MDF.
19:52 here MDF would have you defend 40% and fold 60%= (10.9/18.2).
However, the golden ratio approximation estimates you should defend 46% and fold 54%.
@@GTOWizard my mistake, I thought like pot odds and MDF= bet/(pot+ bet), pot = 5,5+1,8+1,8=9,1, bet = 10,9-1,8=9,1 MDF=50%
You state that GTO "overdefends" relative to MDF against raises. But am I wrong that the "golden ratio x pot odds" formula results in *underdefending relative to MDF* for a 1/2 pot raise? You say the fold % is 0.4 for a raise of that size. That's a 60% defend. The MDF for a 0.5 pot raise is 67%. Same for full pot raise: MDF is 50%; golden-ratio is 45. ... What am I misunderstanding? Thanks!
The misunderstanding is that the villain IS NOT risking 50% pot to win 100% pot, but risking more, therefore your (naive) MDF is lower.
For instance, if you bet 1/3 (1.8bb) into a 5.5bb pot, the pot is now 7.3bb.
If the opponent raises 50% pot, it means that he raises to 1.8bb PLUS 50% of (7.3+1.8) = 1.8 + 4.55 = 6.35bb
So he is risking 6.35bb to win 6.35+7.3 = 13.65. Alpha then is 46.5 % so (naive) MDF is 54.5% < 60 %
This is a common misconception about how MDF works facing a raise. MrMiguelChaves comment explains it well. You can also watch this video to learn more.
ua-cam.com/video/9g95nWVU8-M/v-deo.htmlsi=F257G01DHzRxeWPk
How about turn and river?
I haven't figured out what's going on with the graph at 15:25 yet, but it's definitely not what you say it is. You have the EV of what you say is a value bet as being less than the EV of checking, for instance.
Yes that can happen. If betting just folds out worse hands and mostly gets called by better, then the EV of checking can be higher than the EV of betting. This is a classic example of why betting too thin can be problematic.
Does GTO overdefend, compared to MDF, vs raises even when OOP?
Yes. GTO overdefends facing a raise in or out of position, before the river.
The alternative is folding, so a bluff raise only needs to be better than 0EV to be playable. If the IP player defends exactly MDF facing a raise, then the OOP player can just bluff-raise everything that has any piece of the board facing a bet. The way to think about it is that you could fold and win 0, or bluff raise, break even on that raise, then freeroll your future street equity.
@@GTOWizard is it correct to assume that another reason thats happening is that heros continue range has hands in it, that want to bluff (and do so profitably) on later streets, making heros continue range consisting out of more bluffs on the flop, lesser bluffs on the turn and finally closest to "naive MDF" by the river (where bluffs have no additional equity and basically becoming more pure relying only on fold equity)?
Also.. what if you "view" the risk the raiser puts out in two parts, where the first part completes the initial bet (in your example 1,5bb) taking it out of the classic risk/reward calculation and making it kind of a "price" to participate further in the pot and the second part of the raise (wich would then be 7,5bb) then the "real risk" wich would then be exactly a "potsized" bet and lead to a new risk/reward calculation "7,5/(1,5+4,5+1,5)" wich then would equal to 50% and also fit perfectly in the "OOP-slightly-overfolding-to-MDF pattern"
Nicely done tombos, great video
Thanks Paint!
So I’m a bit confused as to why you would need you bluffs to have a higher folding frequency if you actually have more checking equity (ie if you are actually more likely to win even if they do call, why wouldn’t you actually be able to get fewer bluffs through in order for them to be profitable than if you had a true naive bluff, where you were dead if they called?). Is it just because you are now risking more money to realize that same equity with a bet (ie bluff) as you have with simply a check?
As I understand it, it is beacuse you are bluffing into a part of villain range that you already were winning by checking. This part of the range folds anyway, you never win even if they do call, so you cannot extract value by betting it. So now you need an extra percentage of folds from villan's range in order to maintain the percentage required for your bluff to be profitable, cos this bluff retains some equity by checking sometimes. To illustrate better, if you are betting with a hand with good checking equity but that's never called by worst when bet, you'd need enourmous fold equity for it to have the same ev than checking.
I don't know I explained myself, english is not my main language and this concepts are abstract enough.
Yes, I think your last sentence shows you understand the concept.
If the value of checking is higher, then you need more incentive to turn your hand into a bluff. The goal being to take the highest EV action.
If EV (Check) = 0.25
Then EV (Bluff) >= 0.25 in order for bluffing to be a viable option
on the desmos example, isnt the "EV when called" supposed to fluctuate?
The graph shows required fold% by EV when called, the EV of checking is an adjustable parameter.
So mdf is augmented by position, stack size etc?
no. The only reason position affects MDF is because when you're in position on earlier streets you are more likely to realize the equity your hand is worth or even over-realize your equity. This is because you can apply pressure with bluffs and are more easily able to value bet and bluff as the texture of the flop changes on later streets, as you get to see how your opponent reacts first.
It is augmented by the EV of the alternative option (checking or folding), and the EV when you get called (or raised).
Those inputs can be influenced by postflop variables like position, stack depth and texture.
Great video man, tks a lot!
MORE VIDOES LIKE THIS PLEASE !! MORE !!
I get why the IP player folds less than MDF vs a check-raise. But then there’s a graph showing that BB defends at exactly MDF vs a SB c-bet. Why doesn’t BB overdefend? What’s different about the latter scenario?
The difference is the alternative option.
When bluff-raising, your alternative option is to fold (0EV). This "lowers the bar" for bluffing, since it only needs to be better than 0. Conversely, when bluff-betting, your alternative option is checking (still slightly +EV). This raises the bar for bluffing, since it needs to be better than a +EV check.
@@GTOWizard But in the SB c-bet scenario hands that SB bets are also slightly +EV in a check line. BB should overfold then, but no, it doesn't.
@@djm751 its due to the inherent disadvantage of the BBvSB ranges. He simply has too many weaks to be able to over defend without giving up EV to SB by doing so.
idk if this is relevent for the time but I know in the leak tracker for poker tracker it has like 60% folds for flop cbet is that really out dated?
Depends on the size of the flop cbet.
It's a bit high. As the other comment says, it depends on the size of the c-bet. Nowadays people tend to bet much smaller on the flop compared to when PT4 published their leaktracker stats, meaning optimal defense will likely be wider.
Wow, Golden ratio is showing up in poker too!!
god is everywhere
Tombos for President!
How does one utilize this to improve their poker game though without spending a bunch of hours doing tedious work? Seems relatively inefficient from my perspective.
That is why he said at the end that it would be more useful for private coaching viewersn , considering that the players who can figure out or at least estimate equity of his hand vs range, normally are players who already have a good knowledge of advanced poker concepts, while for low stakes UA-camrs viewers, it surely will be a bit alien.
Tombos and QY are GOAT
Let's make this easy... Just play poker 😂
The desmos graph shows that a "value bluff" is a thing. 😂
The vluff
This is old concept, just repackaged. GTO is GTO, that's it. If it's flawed then its not true GTO. GTO changes based on new data or new discovery.
I think you've misunderstood the video. No one is claiming that "GTO is wrong". The video explains why oversimplified equations like Naive MDF fail to model the true complexity of the game.
You were saying that GTO overcalls, overfolds, under defends, etc. Then that's not GTO, that's what people perceived as GTO and you were trying to explain how to exploit it.
My point is that, if you are going to use the word GTO and imply that its making incorrect decision or action in the context that its Naive MDF, then its misleading. GTO simply can't be Naive MDF because its already optimal. To use False GTO and Correct GTO might be more accurate and clearer way to get the point across.@@GTOWizard
@@StrongwillGameTheory You have it backwards.
No one is claiming that the GTO strategy is making mistakes. No one has claimed that GTO strategy is over or under-defending relative to optimal strategy.
I'm saying that GTO over or under-defends, relative to the naive MDF calculation. The GTO strategy is obviously correct, the naive MDF calculation is not. This video attempts to explain why that difference exists. I recommend watching the end of the video for a further explanation.
perahps there is other golden ratio hide in the game, let's go find the other 😎
An im the inky one that is kost kistening uo this? Yikes?
blah blah blah either you know or you dont smiple maths