Small Stakes No-Limit Hold'em

Post edited 10:09 pm – June 17, 2009 by dsvw56

Ed Miller said:

Having said that, the OP is definitely right that there are guys out there who's 3-bet/5-bet game is exploitable by bluff 4-betting more often than we recommended.

Ed, that wasn't the point to my post. I just meant that your generalization is very misleading. Adjusting your value 4-bet range depends on their 5-betting range, not your own 4-betting frequency*, while you adjust your 4-bet bluff range based on the difference between their 3-betting range and their 5-betting range. Just because one range gets wider/narrower does not necessarily mean the other needs to be adjusted.

*Obviously most players will adjust their 5-betting range based on your 4-betting frequency but this is getting too advanced for my point here.

Edit : I've been having trouble verbalizing what I'm trying to get across but I think I have it here.  

I am not advocating drastically unbalancing your 4-betting range, but rather just because you can 4-bet bluff someone more often than standard does not mean you should always add more "value" hands to your 4-bet range.

Ed Miller said:

Well, you're right, but the further you unlink these two frequencies, the more exploitable you yourself can become if you've got it wrong or if your opponent adjusts.

Well yeah, of course. But by 4-betting for value too light for the sake of balance you're exploiting yourself as well.

Sunny Mehta said:

dsvw56 said:

Just because you can 4-bet bluff someone a lot (i.e. they 3-bet light yet are incapable of going next level and 5bet bluff shove) does not mean you can 4-bet them more often for value. 

---

What you are saying is true given your assumptions, but imo your assumptions are off. In practice, even the most standard of TAGs adjust their pf all-in ranges to constant 3- and 4-betting. I consistently observe players who would normally get all-in with only AA-QQ/AK insta-shove hands like JJ-88/AQ/AJs/etc when they think they're getting pushed around by a 3- and 4-bet happy opponent.

That's going beyond the scope of what I'm saying and my example was exaggerated just to prove my point. I'm simply saying that just because you can 4-bet bluff more frequently does not mean necessarily that you should be adding more hands to your 4-bet value range because it just doesn't work that way all the time. If someone folds often to 4-bets, you flat the lower end of your 4-betting value range since your expectation when 5-bet is much lower than average and your expectation vs. their 3-betting range is much better. You don't 4-bet for value wider, you 4-bet bluff more often to replace the few hands you are now flatting.

 It's the same thing as playing  vs. someone with a wide opening range that folds well to 3-bets. Hands that you normally would 3-bet, like AQ, you now flat because your expectation is far greater vs. their opening range than their 3-bet calling range. Your 3-bet frequency may stay roughly the same, but it is going to be shifted slightly now to contain some more bluffs and less value hands overall.

FYI, this is the passage I'm refferring to :

"You should 4-bet over a 3-bet for the same two reasons: for value

and as a bluff. The wider your opponent’s 3-betting range, the more

hands you should 4-bet. Again, when you increase your bluffing

frequency you should also add more hands that you 4-bet for value."

There's just not enough context around this. I understand what you're saying, but for this statement to be true, there pretty always has to be a 3-bet/4-bet/5-bet dynamic in place between you and villain already. By using the 2/3 rule you guys outline, you leave yourself less exploitable if he adjusts, which I agree with. I just don't think you should immediately default to the least exploitable strategy until your opponent has proven capable of adjustment. 

Sunny Mehta said:

Post edited 12:02 am – June 18, 2009 by Sunny Mehta

---

dsvw56 said:

I just don't think you should immediately default to the least exploitable strategy until your opponent has proven capable of adjustment. 

---

I absolutely agree with that statement. This is basically no different than the typical “game theory optimal” vs “exploitative” debate. But I don't think we presented the section as advocating an optimal strategy with no regards for exploiting specific opponent tendencies, do you? Imo you're adding undue emphasis to that one particular sentence. I.e. – we didn't mean that sentence as necessarily the definitive and unchanging strategy for a 4-bet, it's just something to think about.

No, I don't think so. Like I said in the OP, I understand the point you were making but it is misleading. Even as just a generalization.  Either that section needs more context or needs to be reworded.

I just think there needs to be some context around that statement. For the first real "strategy" point you make around 4-betting, it is rather unclear and can be misleading to someone who doesn't already have a firm grasp on how to properly adjust ranges. 

Something like :

" Again, when you increase your bluffing frequency you should also add more hands that you 4-bet for value to avoid being exploited."

Is enough I think to better convey the point you were trying to make.