The complementary nature of poker

I thought i'd put this in short-handed since it gets the most traffic and this applies to everything.

I was reading 2p2 a bit and i came across a post where a player, a 2/4 and 3/6 regular that i thought was reasonably good made a ridiculous statement. He said "I think leading flops is always terrible."

The reason this statement is ridiculous is the same reason why any general strategy that is simple and surface-surface level is stupid. Poker strategy is complimentary, if one move is good, then it's complimentary move is not good. And vice versa. What does this mean? Let me show an example:

I'm in the BB, the co raises, the button calls, i call. The flop comes 233 totally dry. Let's say i have 78, total air. Now, according to this 2p2 player, leading is always terrible no matter what you have. And i for some reason follow this idiots mantra and i decide not to lead with 78 because i also think its terrible. But if leading with air is so bad, doesn't this mean leading for pure value, the compliment of a bluff, is very very good?

Another example, let's say i get to the river and my opponent bets and im thinking of c/ring with a middle strength hand for value. I decide, however, that he'll give me too much credit and will never call with worse. But this just means that i should be c/ring this river as a bluff, even if it means turning midpair or something with showdown value into one.

I had 3 morals of this story when i thought of writing this. 1) don't be a pussy when it comes to bluffing. If you encounter a situations where you don't value bet KJ on a K8642 board on the river because you think you get too much credit, bluff the shit out of it. And if you really belief you wont get any credit at all, be patient, widen your value range, and value bet the shit out of your opponent. 2) Don't follow basic strategy like "you should never lead" or "c/ring the turn is the shit!" As i pointed out above, these statements can't possibly make sense. And lastly 3) Dont see the game of poker in parts, see it as a whole. While value betting wide, think of why you are deciding not to bluff. While bluffing wide, think about what you're going to do when you get to this same spot with TP weak kicker. I think you'll come out as a better player because of it.



P.S./ ramble/ comeback: For those who are going to comment about balancing your range. These thoughts i just laid out don't always apply.
For example If a prior action leaves you so you actually can't have any type of value hands, you will essentially only be able to make one-sided plays. This is ok if that prior action is substantially +EV. But if you think about it, this balancing of range also has a compliment, which is range you get with your other hands that will hopefully be exploiting your opponent.

But sometimes you will want to balance because you think it will stop your opponent from adjusting correctly. This is definitely an exception to the rule. Another exception is sometimes just betting with all bluffs and value you good, for example on a river where if you check your opponent will always check, and you think a bluff is good with any two, you should bet everything including the stone cold nuts.

Nice post!!!

Good Post.

Personally, I think Yes, doing the complimentary move of what is Bad should be Good. But not necessarily the Best...

(Also your 3 morals gave me some good ideas about when & why I should be checking or betting with my 'B' range so thanks for that!)

Well, if leading for value is really good, c/ring might be better. So you did not quite disprove his point, because some people always c/r flops in NLHE or c/c while never leading. Other than that, I think I get what you're talking about.

Very nice post, appreciate it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by iopq

Well, if leading for value is really good, c/ring might be better. So you did not quite disprove his point, because some people always c/r flops in NLHE or c/c while never leading. Other than that, I think I get what you're talking about.

---

Well yeah this is true. I think in most situations though if you feel like leading as a bluff is "really bad" then leading for value is the most +EV play. However, if leading as a bluff is simply "a little bad" then leading for value may not be better than c/r or c/c.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by IowaSkinsFan

Well yeah this is true. I think in most situations though if you feel like leading as a bluff is "really bad" then leading for value is the most +EV play.

---

This is what I was wondering about when I said it's not the necessarily the best...Like if leading as a bluff is bad because you will get raised an obscene amount sure it makes sense to lead for value instead (just in isolation obv.) But won't you be getting raised by a range full of re-bluffs/air that won't put any more money in the pot if you continue to show strength? In which case the most +ev play may not be to lead fold air or lead for value but rather continue to check value hands and lead 4B weak hands or lead-call lead etc. Or is this just OTT?

Thanks for writing this post, Max. I feel like everything you and Danny write is so over my head so I usually end up reading your posts at least twice before I understand any of it :P

I like this post, this is right in line with pretty much exactly what Nutedawg goes in a ton of depth about in the sessions I've had with him.

One spot I found kind of interesting that I noticed is not good to do as a bluff or for value is to flat a 4bet then lead out at the flop.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Marshall28

I like this post, this is right in line with pretty much exactly what Nutedawg goes in a ton of depth about in the sessions I've had with him.

One spot I found kind of interesting that I noticed is not good to do as a bluff or for value is to flat a 4bet then lead out at the flop.

---

A more complicated point i wanted to make in my post is that even this has a complement. Your statement is very general (i'm sure there are boards, opponents, or combos of both in which leading in a 4bet pot can be very good or bad), but lets just assume we're in a situation where you are right. Leading in that spot, by itself, seems pointless and unprofitable. But if by leading with a certain type of hand you now have adjusted your c/c range or c/r range to something very profitable against this opponent, you have created an edge. Basically, the complement to doing this is the new range you formed to exploit your opponent (note that if the alternative to leading is much more +ev than leading, this exchange may be bad. It's much better to take alternative lines with hands that have marginal profitability becuase it actually doesn't matter then what you do with them in a vaccum, c/c, c/f, and leading all have the same value).

Also just btw if its neutral to lead once you called the 4bet, its +ev to call the 4bet because of the great pot odds.

Massimo,

First, thanks for posting this because I had been playing really badly the last couple days and for some reason this post jogged something in my mind and made me play much better immediately after reading it. So thank you.

Second, I'm not sure I entirely understood your post. The reason I felt like flatting a 4bet and leading is bad to do for value and as a bluff is because if you are flatting a 4bet to lead a flop for value, you should have just 5bet since if you are ahead of your opponent (which you must assume is true if you are now leading for value on the flop--otherwise your flat preflop was bad) he's getting it in either way, so you just give him a chance to either catch up or now get away from his hand on a scary board. Reason it's bad as a bluff is because you should have just 5bet if you were that sure your opponent was going to fold preflop--You also just give him an opportunity to catch up. This appears to be bad in both scenarios. Maybe you can explain why that's not the case if you think differently.

Also, I'm not sure calling a 4bet for raw pot odds is very good either since you are out of position (in order to lead at a flop) and in a very bad RIO spot if you are just calling to hit your hand.

well if your opponent min4b IP because he thought you wouldn't flat then you might be getting the correct odds to play fit or fold and incorrect odds to 5b pre

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Marshall28

Massimo,

First, thanks for posting this because I had been playing really badly the last couple days and for some reason this post jogged something in my mind and made me play much better immediately after reading it. So thank you.

Second, I'm not sure I entirely understood your post. The reason I felt like flatting a 4bet and leading is bad to do for value and as a bluff is because if you are flatting a 4bet to lead a flop for value, you should have just 5bet since if you are ahead of your opponent (which you must assume is true if you are now leading for value on the flop--otherwise your flat preflop was bad) he's getting it in either way, so you just give him a chance to either catch up or now get away from his hand on a scary board. Reason it's bad as a bluff is because you should have just 5bet if you were that sure your opponent was going to fold preflop--You also just give him an opportunity to catch up. This appears to be bad in both scenarios. Maybe you can explain why that's not the case if you think differently.

Also, I'm not sure calling a 4bet for raw pot odds is very good either since you are out of position (in order to lead at a flop) and in a very bad RIO spot if you are just calling to hit your hand.

---

All Max is saying is that when you have some equity... leading, c/c, c/r, or c/f... all are not far and away better than the other. Therefore, you should just play in a way that theoretically adjusts your ranges to his the best. (I think he wasnt refering the fourbet pot example. Ranges are so thin in 4bet pots it seems to be beside the point).

Thanks for posting this, it's awesome that you two still contribute so much to this site, most people would have long since stopped. I really liked what you wrote about thinking through the implications of your reads, i.e. bluffing a ton if you think you get a lot of credit, and value betting really thin if you think you won't, too many people do neither of these.

I think this whole thread though, begs the question of what you do if you don't know how your opponent is going to react to a play. I probably take balance and game theory into account more than 99.9% of players and a lot of my friends always ask me why, my answer is always that I use exploitative strategies when I know what they are, but often times I don't. Or if I have a vague idea but I'm not sure, then I might weight my range to one side but still balance it out somewhat. The OP seems to assume you know everything about your opponent's range and how he's going to react to any play you could possibly make. Obviously if you knew that, you could make the perfect play against him every time and not have to worry about balance, but I strongly feel that balance is the best response to the fact that poker is a game of incomplete information. To respond to incomplete information by (for example) never making a big bluff unless you're sure it's +EV, ironically makes it impossible to ever figure out if it is because until you actually try it, you can only guess as to whether it's a good idea.

So yes, while what you said is true that whenever a move is good, its complement is bad, I'm often mixing both moves into my arsenal, both to make myself harder to read and to get better reads on how my opponent reacts to the moves. Once I feel I have a good idea, then I can adopt a more exploitative strategy in that spot.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mcatdog

I think this whole thread though, begs the question of what you do if you don't know how your opponent is going to react to a play. I probably take balance and game theory into account more than 99.9% of players and a lot of my friends always ask me why, my answer is always that I use exploitative strategies when I know what they are, but often times I don't. Or if I have a vague idea but I'm not sure, then I might weight my range to one side but still balance it out somewhat. The OP seems to assume you know everything about your opponent's range and how he's going to react to any play you could possibly make. Obviously if you knew that, you could make the perfect play against him every time and not have to worry about balance, but I strongly feel that balance is the best response to the fact that poker is a game of incomplete information. To respond to incomplete information by (for example) never making a big bluff unless you're sure it's +EV, ironically makes it impossible to ever figure out if it is because until you actually try it, you can only guess as to whether it's a good idea.

---

I agree with this
This is why I balance even against fish, because I don't know whether a second barrel is profitable, but even if I think it's not maybe I'll still fire a small % of the time because if barreling this particular fish is actually really profitable then I'm making a bigger mistake by not barreling at all than I'm making by barreling a fish that rarely folds to two streets of aggression by barreling say 10% of the time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Marshall28

Massimo,

First, thanks for posting this because I had been playing really badly the last couple days and for some reason this post jogged something in my mind and made me play much better immediately after reading it. So thank you.

Second, I'm not sure I entirely understood your post. The reason I felt like flatting a 4bet and leading is bad to do for value and as a bluff is because if you are flatting a 4bet to lead a flop for value, you should have just 5bet since if you are ahead of your opponent (which you must assume is true if you are now leading for value on the flop--otherwise your flat preflop was bad) he's getting it in either way, so you just give him a chance to either catch up or now get away from his hand on a scary board. Reason it's bad as a bluff is because you should have just 5bet if you were that sure your opponent was going to fold preflop--You also just give him an opportunity to catch up. This appears to be bad in both scenarios. Maybe you can explain why that's not the case if you think differently.

Also, I'm not sure calling a 4bet for raw pot odds is very good either since you are out of position (in order to lead at a flop) and in a very bad RIO spot if you are just calling to hit your hand.

---

the calling a 4bet thing really had nothing to do with my post, i just was making a sidepoint that if you think leading in a 4bet pot with a bluff is marginal in a vacuum, then you could call pre getting 3:1 to take down the pot with a lead like 40% of the time... if this still is confusing just nevermind.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mcatdog

I think this whole thread though, begs the question of what you do if you don't know how your opponent is going to react to a play. I probably take balance and game theory into account more than 99.9% of players and a lot of my friends always ask me why, my answer is always that I use exploitative strategies when I know what they are, but often times I don't. Or if I have a vague idea but I'm not sure, then I might weight my range to one side but still balance it out somewhat. The OP seems to assume you know everything about your opponent's range and how he's going to react to any play you could possibly make. Obviously if you knew that, you could make the perfect play against him every time and not have to worry about balance, but I strongly feel that balance is the best response to the fact that poker is a game of incomplete information. To respond to incomplete information by (for example) never making a big bluff unless you're sure it's +EV, ironically makes it impossible to ever figure out if it is because until you actually try it, you can only guess as to whether it's a good idea.

So yes, while what you said is true that whenever a move is good, its complement is bad, I'm often mixing both moves into my arsenal, both to make myself harder to read and to get better reads on how my opponent reacts to the moves. Once I feel I have a good idea, then I can adopt a more exploitative strategy in that spot.

---

I see your point, which is why one should always play initially on the tighter and more passive side (both these things give you the ability to balance, because by being tight and a little passive your betting and raising ranges have a lot more made hands). However, balance because your "not sure" is not a good strategy. If your best guess is that a player will fold to double barrels too much, but its more of a hunch, you should still act to exploit it. All balancing does is lower your risk, but also your reward...

Actually i need to think about that one more, i may be wrong.

Also, last point. You said that you wont know if a big bluff is good unless you try it. Thats not true, you get info from when you have a strong hand and it plays out. Maybe you'll valuebet 5 rivers and he'll fold everytime. And then when you get to a similar spot and have nothing, you will be pretty sure that you can make a big bluff.

Just wanted to say I liked Mcats response & then also Massimos response to that response :) Good thread.

I'll add that if you're playing 6max you can also let other more aggressive players at the table find out alot of that information for you.

Massimo, another thing is that after he folds 5 rivers with a mediocre hand he might look you up light the next time. This is where balance helps you because you've already bluffed him like twice and played against this person more optimally than if you have been playing ABC until you figure out exploitable tendencies.

Another thing is when someone calls say 80% of 3bs if you stop 3bing him he might actually see on his hud that you're 3bing less and stop calling as much. Which is why you should still throw out a 3b once in a while (but pick hands like KQo instead of 65s even if you think KQo might play better as a flat in isolation)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by iopq

Massimo, another thing is that after he folds 5 rivers with a mediocre hand he might look you up light the next time. This is where balance helps you because you've already bluffed him like twice and played against this person more optimally than if you have been playing ABC until you figure out exploitable tendencies.

Another thing is when someone calls say 80% of 3bs if you stop 3bing him he might actually see on his hud that you're 3bing less and stop calling as much. Which is why you should still throw out a 3b once in a while (but pick hands like KQo instead of 65s even if you think KQo might play better as a flat in isolation)

---

I used to be worried about this stuff. Now not so much. First off, most of us play in such a way where even if he bluff a shitload in a spot we still end up having value sometimes, and as i stated earlier, sometimes there really isnt a better alternative line so thats fine. Secondly, if someone folds to a 3bet 80% of a large sample, they clearly just dont want to call 3bets. Don't level yourself into thinking they're more clever than they are. Don't 3bet TT to their co raise because you think he's catching on, because he's not (btw, there's actually a winning regular at 5/10 who folds to almost 80% of 3bets. I've been 3betting him with 1/3 of my hands, and flatting big pairs and he still folds way too much. This has gone on for more than 5000 hands together). Another good application of this is 4betting. For the most part, if someone is a good player but mostly spewy to 4bets, don't throw in 4bet bluffs even if you've shown one big hand! He hasn't made instant adjustments, trust me. The only reason to throw one in is gameflow but with a player like that you'd have to have a very good gameflow reason.

On another note, this is why i mostly stay on level one with betsizing. I thought for so long that when i was in a spot, where previously i had bluffed. That i wanted to use a different betsize against a good player because it was so see through if i was for value. Or that i should bet the same as a bluff again because he wouldnt think i'd do that as a bluff again! Even against good players, i was wrong. They did what was exactly in accord with level 1 thinking (also, and i've seen this with most players, if you find a player makes a few plays that correlate to level one thinking, he's most likely level one with everything. If a player is level 2 with a few plays, he's most likely level 2 with everything. If someone shows you a mix of this shoot me a pm because its rare as hell).

Wow that was longer than i initially intended

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Massimo

However, balance because your "not sure" is not a good strategy. If your best guess is that a player will fold to double barrels too much, but its more of a hunch, you should still act to exploit it. All balancing does is lower your risk, but also your reward...

---

I still don't see how it's a bad strategy to use your equity to balance your range in this spot. You can give up with hands that are most likely drawing dead, but bet again with hands that probably have 4+ outs. With hands that have outs, you don't need to be as confident in your read in order to act on it. So your range is going to have a lot more bluffs than usual but it's still going to be more balanced than it would be if you were sure it was profitable to double barrel without cards. Another example, if you think someone is 4-bet bluffing too much, you might 3-bet 22 and 5-bet allin, but not with 54o, because the assumptions for 54o shove to be +EV are much stronger.

Quote:

---

Also, last point. You said that you wont know if a big bluff is good unless you try it. Thats not true, you get info from when you have a strong hand and it plays out. Maybe you'll valuebet 5 rivers and he'll fold everytime. And then when you get to a similar spot and have nothing, you will be pretty sure that you can make a big bluff.

---

Yeah you're right about this.

good post. if you can't bluff it, then value bet thinner. if you can't value bet it, then bluff it more. if you just don't know, then do both!

I love when I write a long post and someone else comes along and says one line that says everything I said in that post.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mcatdog

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Massimo

However, balance because your "not sure" is not a good strategy. If your best guess is that a player will fold to double barrels too much, but its more of a hunch, you should still act to exploit it. All balancing does is lower your risk, but also your reward...

---

I still don't see how it's a bad strategy to use your equity to balance your range in this spot. You can give up with hands that are most likely drawing dead, but bet again with hands that probably have 4+ outs. With hands that have outs, you don't need to be as confident in your read in order to act on it. So your range is going to have a lot more bluffs than usual but it's still going to be more balanced than it would be if you were sure it was profitable to double barrel without cards. Another example, if you think someone is 4-bet bluffing too much, you might 3-bet 22 and 5-bet allin, but not with 54o, because the assumptions for 54o shove to be +EV are much stronger.

---

Right, obviously i agree. But 22 is the better shove because it has better equity against a calling range (just like a semibluff). Maybe you think that you need that equity in order for a shove to be good because he's 4bet bluffing a decent amount, but not enough for 54o to be a shove. It doesn't have to do with balance...

I'm not even sure that we're disagreeing at all though. I'm not saying to go crazy on a hunch, i don't think a hunch is enough information to stray from tight, solid poker. Stay solid and balanced, then adjust when the reads come. I agree. If i said anything earlier that disagrees with this, i conveyed my thoughts poorly. My only point was that a lot of players try to balance when they don't have to, which takes away from the full exploitation of their opponent.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gabe

good post. if you can't bluff it, then value bet thinner. if you can't value bet it, then bluff it more. if you just don't know, then do both!

---

This is basically the cliffnotes for those who skimmed.

just wanted to say a++ and THANK YOU for posting.

intuitive players (contrary to hyperrational) that i talk to just hate this reasoning.

when i make an overbet and get called down light, Rav will often laugh and say MAN HE NEVER FOLDS THERE

when i reply that "well i guess that means i should be value-shoving wide there" he often snickers and stops arguing

kind of pointless but thx for the post - made me think of lots of yelling matches i ve had

Awesome poasts guys. I made some of these notes to my "review beofre playing" lists.

I had a couple of questions in my mind but can only think of one right now. I may have missed this previously but what if want to double barrel bluff a ton but never double barrel for value, yet we gain a lot by betting flop for value? For instance, the flop is A94r. He'll always call one with 9x/midpair/maybe 4x/floats and fold most turns with them. The flop line in itself seems weird because it seems we should be betting the flop with value hands and bluffs but only using this theory on the turn. I could be way off sorry.

Awesome awesome thread!

Couldn't one think that leading flops is always "terrible" in the sense that its always suboptimal to checking?

I'm not saying I believe this, I'm just saying it is possible for a play to always be suboptimal. For example, c/c and lead is a play that 90% of the time isn't good when compared to all the other options. Or open limping.

One might suggest that leading dilutes your other flop ranges, making it harder to c/r or c/c a balanced range.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Renton

Couldn't one think that leading flops is always "terrible" in the sense that its always suboptimal to checking?

I'm not saying I believe this, I'm just saying it is possible for a play to always be suboptimal. For example, c/c and lead is a play that 90% of the time isn't good when compared to all the other options. Or open limping.

One might suggest that leading dilutes your other flop ranges, making it harder to c/r or c/c a balanced range.

---

that's exactly the point I made and it would be almost true if the pfr had a stronger range every time

but in situations like BU vs. blinds, the blinds actually have a stronger range so it makes sense that leading flops is a good way to play flops that will get checked back by the pfr like if you have 99 on 862r

but in the case of an UTG opener his range is so strong he's more likely to cbet air even on such a board