Bluff to value ratio

[Stu_Ungar]

I have just been watching Matt_Janda's Optimal Flop Play, Part 1.

Great video.

He suggests that the GTO ratio of bluffs to raises is 3:2.

I was under the impression (I got this fro Ed Miller videos and I may be completely off the mark from what was said in these videos) that the GTO ratio of bluffs to value was 1:2

3:2 has more bluffs that values in the range

1:2 has more values than bluffs in the range.

Could someone offer me more of an explanation as to why we are raising more bluffs than value because it seems to me that if there are more bluffs than value in our range our opponent can come over the top with impunity.

[Irwin Fletcher]

Interesting concept. I haven't watched the video. I also don't know anything about game theory except from college economics.

I think that the the optimal strategy in any game is one that your opponent can not exploit to win the game by taking any action.

It seems a bit ridiculous to talk about game theory in relation to poker as a whole. You have to simplify it to specific scenarios with concrete assumptions. Saying that a bluff to value range of 3:2 is optimal provides no context and no assumptions about the opponent's strategy.

What are the context and assumptions that Matt provides to support his claim?

[QTip]

Well, if a person were playing optimally, he wouldn't be concerned with his opponent's strategy. It's been a while since I looked at this stuff, but what the bluff ratio should be is not a static number. It's dependent on the odds you're offering your opponent.

If you make a pot-sized bet, you're laying 2:1 to your opponent. Because of this, your optimal strategy would be having 2x the amount of value bets to bluffs. Your opponent is indifferent to calling and can do nothing to get money from you.

Now, if you bet 1/2 pot, you're offering your opponent 3:1. Now you need 3x more value bets to bluffs in order to play optimally.

Balanced play is interesting for sure, but I think it's stressed too heavily for the vast majority of playing fields.

[Smaptastic]

Interesting concept. I haven't watched the video. I also don't know anything about game theory except from college economics.

...

What are the context and assumptions that Matt provides to support his claim?

Neither does Matt Janda. Fun fact: whenever someone describes themself as a "game theory expert," you can pretty much read that as "I read a book on it once and didn't understand some of the words, but I want people to think I'm an expert at something."

His context and assumptions are some bizarre mix of opponents that always call and opponents that always fold, and basically assumes that when you raise, you will be called 100% of the time, and still thinks you should balance your bluff/raise range. Or something like that.

If you watch the video, it really makes no sense whatsoever.

Favorite part: Where he claims a 277 board hits an UTG raiser's range "Much harder" than a button caller's range. I ran the math. With the nittiest UTG raiser ever and a button caller who calls PP's JJ- and almost any suited connector, it's about 50/50. Open up the UTG and make the button call with less SC's, and you've shifted the balance toward the button caller.

[QTip]

Hey guys. I'm gonna make a video on this topic to clear up confusion and talk about the practicality of this topic. I'll have it up in the next week or so.

[Judd]

Well, if a person were playing optimally, he wouldn't be concerned with his opponent's strategy.

Why wouldn't he be concerned with his opponent's strategy? My understanding is that you want to play optimally against unknowns, and opponents that are playing optimally. The rest of the time you want to be exploiting your opponents. How can you do this if you're not concerned with your opponents strategy?

[Judd]

Neither does Matt Janda. Fun fact: whenever someone describes themself as a "game theory expert," you can pretty much read that as "I read a book on it once and didn't understand some of the words, but I want people to think I'm an expert at something."

What proof do you have of this? Perhaps his videos should not be on the site if they are that bad.

[QTip]

Why wouldn't he be concerned with his opponent's strategy? My understanding is that you want to play optimally against unknowns, and opponents that are playing optimally. The rest of the time you want to be exploiting your opponents. How can you do this if you're not concerned with your opponents strategy?

Hey Judd. I got a good start on this video today, and it should be out fairly soon. What you're saying is basically right, but that's not what I was talking about. I was saying that when making a bet (bluff:value ratio) in terms of balanced play, you're not concerned with your opponent's strategy. What you're saying is that you are concerned with your opponent's strategy in terms of deciding whether or not to play a balanced game. I agree with you. By the way, the other time you'd want to play a balanced strategy is when your opponent is better than you at exploitive play.

[Hunter Bick]

Neither does Matt Janda. Fun fact: whenever someone describes themself as a "game theory expert," you can pretty much read that as "I read a book on it once and didn't understand some of the words, but I want people to think I'm an expert at something."

His context and assumptions are some bizarre mix of opponents that always call and opponents that always fold, and basically assumes that when you raise, you will be called 100% of the time, and still thinks you should balance your bluff/raise range. Or something like that.

Guys - Let's be sure to keep the focus on debating poker strategy and content of videos, anything personal like this is too close to the line for me. I encourage a healthy debate and would hope that our members feel comfortable questioning something they've seen a video, constructive debate is very important to the learning process and getting better at poker. But the above quote is a bit much and is not constructive.

Hunter

[Judd]

Hey Judd. I got a good start on this video today, and it should be out fairly soon. What you're saying is basically right, but that's not what I was talking about. I was saying that when making a bet (bluff:value ratio) in terms of balanced play, you're not concerned with your opponent's strategy. What you're saying is that you are concerned with your opponent's strategy in terms of deciding whether or not to play a balanced game. I agree with you. By the way, the other time you'd want to play a balanced strategy is when your opponent is better than you at exploitive play.

ok, thanks. looking forward to the video.

[Irwin Fletcher]

QTip - are you drawing any of the content for this video from book "The Mathematics of Poker" by Bill Chen?

I have a copy that I haven't read yet. It has a really large section on optimal play and game theory.

[QTip]

Hi Irwin. I've read that book a couple times. I've been working my way through it again lately. I have to keep myself sharp with the math jive or it goes away. I'm certain most things I cover in the video are discussed in that book somewhere; however, I'm gleaned a lot from other players/friends as well. I'm hoping to perhaps communicate the concept more easily to the average brain like mine. I'm certainly not a game theory specialist, so don't expect magic. The purpose of the video is going to be geared towards explaining the differences between exploitive and balanced strategies and talk about the value and place for each strategy.