4 Responses to “TPE Theory: Evaluating Bluffs with Andrew Brokos (Part 1)”

  1. rivermen123

    You used the term “pregame warmup,” which I think is interesting. I’ve recently discovered that coaching someone before I begin a session of my own is an excellent mental warmup, and definitely helps sharpen my poker mind. Just thought I’d throw that out there. Love your stuff!

  3. mike666

    On 22.30 when you 3 bet with 78s – do also do such play in 9 max table against early position opener? Would you also 3 bet such hand to middle/late position open if you are on the button? And how deep should we be to justify such 3 bet? Also how the stage of the tournament can affect such 3 betting decision?

    A bit confused about the bluffing spot. Earlier in series you called #5 spot to be a spot where we bluff with our weak made hands as well, while in #4 spot we bluff with just air hands. However in the actual video you call the spot #4 as a spot where we bluff with our weak made hands, however it should be a #5 by your previous explanation. Am I misunderstanding something?

  4. Foucault

    Good questions, thanks.
    1. Probably not. The most important thing to recognize is that an UTG open at a 6max table is equivalent to an open at a 9max table after three people have folded. It’s a shame that terms like “UTG+1” are so enshrined in the poker vocabulary because they are really not very useful. What matters is how many people are behind you when you open, not how many have already folded. So I’d definitely have a less wide 3-betting range against an EP open at a 9max table, because a player who raises from that position would need a stronger hand to do so.
    2. Yes, at this stack depth, I think that suited connectors are quite good hands for 3-betting in position against someone you suspect of having a wide opening range. This is especially true if that player is more likely to call than to 4-bet, when he doesn’t fold.
    3. There’s no bright line for how deep, but deeper is better. This is true both because it’s harder for him to continue to your 3-bet the deeper you are, and because a hand like 87s plays best with a lot of money behind. As you get more shallow, having big cards that can make strong pairs becomes more important, and the ability to make straights and flushes becomes less important.
    4. Mostly it’s about stack depth, but of course I’d be more likely to make a play like this at a stage of the tournament where I’m trying to put a lot of pressure on my opponents, the final table bubble perhaps (though you have to be careful because some players won’t open at all at those points unless they have very strong hands, in which case they are not good targets for a play like this).
    5. No, my explanation was not clear. The numbering system is just something very rough that I came up with, it’s mostly designed just to help you think about bluffing as a spectrum rather than an all-or-nothing. (4) and (5) spots are both ones where you expect a lot of fold equity. Generally fold equity is worth less to you the more showdown equity you have. Part of the point I tried to make in my explanation is that my 87s is actually kind of unlikely to win at showdown if I check the flop, as even if I’m ahead my opponent probably has a lot of equity and could decide to put a lot of pressure on me. So the bluffing-with-showdown-value distinction between (4) and (5) spots starts to matter the closer you get to showdown, and especially on the river.

    Thanks, great questions, hope that clears things up!

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.