No announcement yet.

(Un)blockers & bluff catching

  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • (Un)blockers & bluff catching

    I came across an interesting solver result that shows the importance of thinking about blockers when bluff catching.

    Click image for larger version  Name:	solver-blockers-bluffcatch.png Views:	0 Size:	33.1 KB ID:	24574
    Previous action is:
    MP raise 2.5, BTN call.
    MP bet 2.5, BTN call.
    MP bet 6, BTN call.
    MP bet 16, BTN ...?

    So we're raising sets and bluffs (which are little blue slivers interspersed across the range that you can't see well in this view, look at the top of the 55-33 boxes). We're calling QX pairs and some smaller pairs a portion of the time.

    The interesting thing to me is that we're calling 87s & 76s pairs almost 100% of the time but folding T8s & 98s pairs almost 100% of the time even though they have better kickers!

    So I tried to figure out why... is it something with the 7? That doesn't make sense, it blocks some straight draws that Villain would use as bluffs. But Villain only has the 97s draw in their range...

    Oh! Villain does have all the bigger missed gutters in their range, JTs, J9s & T9s. So since T8s & 98s block some of those bluff combos, the solver never wants to bluff catch with them. To make up for it is always bluff catching with the 87s & 76s because those hands unblock those bluff combos. It even wants to bluff catch with 77 more often than TT & 99 for the same reason.

    Sweet! I already knew this was a consideration but didn't realize how important it was until seeing this very clear 100:0 example, so I wanted to share in case you guys hadn't either.

    (Note: I'm not sure what the deal is with 33. This view doesn't show the % times we make it to this street with each hand, but it's less often for 33 than most other pocket pairs, so maybe it's just a %age-of-total thing.)
    Last edited by reeeeeeper; 10-04-2019, 01:47 PM. Reason: Accidentally included 97s in pairs

  • #2
    This is interesting. I wonder why it has you calling with AJ some percentage of the time.


    • reeeeeeper
      reeeeeeper commented
      Editing a comment
      Hmm, yeah, that's strange. I didn't run the solution down to a super low level of error, but it's still under 1%. I'll have to look into that. The solver doesn't condense frequencies, so if we were converting this to a HW Challenge style answer, we'd condense all of those into one of the pairs and have AJ always be a fold to make a practical solution. Same for 55 & 44, but I'm still curious about that 33.

      Does anyone know of a solver that automatically condenses frequencies for practicality? It would be able to find the one with the least level of error easily. For this one it seems like we'd make JJ, 77 & 33 always calls, AJ, 55 & 44 always folds. We'd probably make TT a call and 99 a fold, though we could potentially split them by suit, calling with the TT & 99 that have a club (doesn't block BDFDs), folding the others.
      Last edited by reeeeeeper; 09-23-2019, 09:53 AM.

  • #3
    Yes. The T and 9 block JT, J9, and T9 straight draw bluffs. That blocks a lot of bluffs, especially when you consider most of those will be suited.


    • #4
      Could the 33 simply be because it doesn't block anything?

      44-55 blocks the very bottom of the 8 high straight draw which of course bricked.


      • reeeeeeper
        reeeeeeper commented
        Editing a comment
        That's probably it, thanks!