How to Find Good Bluffs in Poker?

[@GTOWizard]

Did this video change the way you think about blockers? Let us know down below! We have introduced "Blockers" with our latest patch. Read more here: blog.gtowizard.com/drill-management-and-new-blocker-scores/

[@thesorrow88]

This is an example of someone not truly understanding what they are talking about. The best teachers can teach complex things simply.

[@pokerkramer1240]

How tf is this free? lol +EV af!

[@atulmohite5157]

As an feedback, this was one of the most difficult videos for me to follow.

[@Cuyl1989]

its a good lesson, but i would say the first toy game answer should be C, coz u didnt mention the spr stuff before u pull out the question, and if u say the spr its deep and nuts blocking effect does make sense to bluff there coz vallian didnt bet the turn. Maybe Im wrong, but there r logic conflict for ur toy game.

[@qwertz12345654321]

I would have liked discussing the option from the IP player to bluff in the toygame. If I see it correctly, you didn't disable the option for IP to bet when checked to. It does affect the EV for the OOP player when IP has trash hands added to their range.

[@alexiiiiiii]

Great stuff.

[@entropyl3i]

I have noob question for GTO wizard team: why the gto wizard blocker tab has a unnatural way of definition for user to interpret? I think, atm the moment, the score means this: at some node of the game tree, if you opponent holds this card X, your action frequency will be changed by Y%. Wasn't it more natural to define it in a way that, if you hold this card X, your opponent's action frequency will be changed by Y%?

[@cmares5858]

So on the bluffing with cards that make up your value range. You are doing this because you are blocking some of your opponents thinner call downs? Since they would call you down with blockers to the straight more frequently, by you bluffing with those same blocker cards you are basically blocking them back in a way?

[@GTOWizard]

Yes exactly. The idea being to minimize your own blocker weaknesses.

[@alfredwang3391]

I've been confused by the rhetoric of the blockers feature on gto wizard. Why is phrased like "If your opponent folds x your fold frequency will do this", it is so counter intuitive to me. Why cant we look at what we have in our hands in terms of blockers?

[@RBadding]

I didn't quite understand why you added only J3 and T3 there. Surely you could/should add 93 and 83 too?

[@GTOWizard]

With GTO Wizard Elite, you could modify the ranges to add whatever hands you like to their range!

[@rondoudouche6943]

Great video, thank you. 👍 If the solver prefers to bluff hands that block the missed flushdraw river (in a row where everyone has checked until then) it's not primarily because it blocks fewer really bad hands that auto-fold on a bet? To use the example of "QsTs5d - 2h - 5h" in BB vs BTN, when BB bets Js6s he will block fewer J3-J7s or 67-69s which auto-fold than with Jc6c.

[@GTOWizard]

QY's philosophy on blockers is defensive rather than offensive. He argues that GTO is more focused on minimizing blocker weaknesses within your own range, rather than trying to exploit card removal effects in your opponent’s range. The idea behind scarce cards is to minimize your blocker weaknesses. Scarce bluffs make up a smaller part of your range. When your opponent blocks these scarce cards, they only block a small part of your range, which limits their ability to leverage their blockers.

[@rondoudouche6943]

@@GTOWizard Yes, that's what I understood in the video. The "readjustment" in a solver's calls tends to homogenize the EV of our bluff combos despite the apparent effectiveness of some (in terms of blockers). So except in cases where the properties of a bluff combo are so good or bad that a "readjustment" in the theoretical calls is impossible, the rarity of a combo takes precedence over the rest.

[@kaaristotelancien3005]

solving some toy games is so interesting

[@matthewrenphrey7929]

I was under the impression that you never fold a hand that ties with a hand that villain could raise for value, yet villain is x/jamming the river with some ATo but BTN is supposed to fold a lot with ATs? Seems weird and don’t feel like this can be right?

[@qingyang5296]

That's generally true if you ignore removal effects, but in this case BB's bluffing range is very weighted towards T9 and T8. So AT ends up blocking a big chunk of his bluffs, which is enough to offset the fact that we chop with value. What you said is definitely true in most situations though, so I wouldn't worry too much about a relatively rare spot like this!

[@maxaindyrdx]

hard to understand...

[@GaliReax]

This video is so confusing

[@camaleonsacor1618]

Hi there, have to be honest. I apreciate the work and have seen other good stuff from you. Not saying that this is not valuable, but I cant see more than a 34min vid that give me so litle in terms of reward. Ok, I will have some extra confidence and quiet of mind when bluffing some spots, that is nice, but if we get into this massive solver balance aproach of things I think we miss a bit the point. I mean who cares if solver is adapting with calling some extra frecuency and so on or folding with this hands and so on? this is because solver knows what solver does and it is a machine. It is hard to see the value from all this to me more than "I can block the villans calling range when I raise, sharing cards with my value", and "I can bluff my "bad blocker" if I have litle combos of it and it doesnt mather". I dont know, maybe a more exploitative aproach on how to use this stuff could be good. And I am saying this from the ginorant point of view. I am saying that I can not see more value than what I just said, but ofc maybe I am just not able to see it. Maybe that is the case and would love for someone to correct me, lol. I mean even after the toy game you said it your self: "it is something that doesnt almost happen and it is really hard to see it". Sorry if this sounds rude, is honest feedback. cheers!

[@cmares5858]

Yea I still don't get the 'scarce' bluff example but the bluffing with cards that make up your value range makes some sense.... this is really some solver nerd stuff

[@qingyang5296]

I’m not sure it makes sense to think about blockers “exploitatively”. Blockers only come into play in spots that are close-if you think villain is overfolding/overcalling by a big margin then you should just always/never bluff. If not, then you typically want to choose your bluffs in a way that doesn’t make you too exploitable.

[@camilotm]

If you don't choose the hands you will bluff with following these two main ideas ,and your opponent can (with enough time) figure it out ,then he could easily adapt and exploit you by choosing the right alternative bluffcatchers.For me,the key point of the whole video (and also what makes it so valuable) is that it shows you that it's not simply enought to think about blocking "calls" and unblocking "folds" when deciding to bluff or not with certain hand ,but also to think if the hands and frecuencies you are using are sustainable in time against the same opponent,by this I mean that ,for example,by choosing to bluff with a hand that shares cards with your value range ,you counter the capability of your opponent to adapt and change his bluffcatchers that easily,cause if he does that ,he would be giving up the chance of blocking part of your value range,to a degree (in ev terms) that it's not attractive anymore to change his bluffcatchers as an exploit .So,in that way you make sure that your bluffing hands will be always effective.The same applies for the idea of "scarce" bluff,in the sense that it counters your opponent's capability to adapt and exploit that unbalance,forcing you to adapt again an so forth never reaching a sort fo "convergence".

[@bradwelch6534]

Garbled english as fast as possible. two thumbs up.

[@GTOWizard]

Also, be sure to check out Qing Yang's KZbin channel: www.youtube.com/@PokerGiraffe

[@thomasli2237]

are you a singaporean? can't really understand your accent.

[@GTOWizard]

Hello, you can turn on the subtitles!

[@qingyang5296]

Yup :)

[@JazzYachtrocker]

Go touch grass