Poker Forum

I'm sorry that I'm so late to posting the comments.
I really disliked your guest's defending his ideas by stating that "game theory says...", "the math says...", without ever explaining what he was doing and then contradicting himself quite a lot.

For example, in the hand where he arrives on a river with a full house and he decides to overbet it because of opponent's capped range, I would really love to see an indifference equation that requires overbetting. You say game theory dictates it, so either work it out or point me a link where you read it (watched it in a video).

In fact, I counter with Mathematics of Poker Chapter 15 - Appendix, the NL AKQ game. Which is exactly the situation we are facing. We have the Ace (nuttish type hand), the opponent's range is capped (he has either the K - bluffcatcher or the Q - nut lows). When having a perceived polarized range by opponent the strategy is mixed - you check sometimes to let opponent bluff off and when you bet, you bet about 30% of the pot, never overbet.

If he wants to show me some equations that prove me different without invoking exploitative play, I would be most welcome, but at a certain point the overbet IS NOT dictated by game theory, but by opponent exploitation (meta).

Then he started contradicting himself, first saying we have a polarized range (value bets and bluffes) and a few minutes later he says we should bet 100% of our range. Well, which one is it? Like would you overbet a pocket pair here that doesn't set you, i.e. would you overbet a bluffcatcher to merge your range?

Again, I mostly agreed with his lines (not all) and I'm sure he beats up high stakes all good, but his reasoning seemed really poor and cloaked with difficult words.