4 Popular Beliefs In Poker That Are NOT TRUE

[@saulocostapoker]

💲Join the Cash Made Simple Community: the best place for you to improve your game and achieve your goals as a cash game player. I study, you play. We Win. Secure your spot by November 21st. Get started: bit.ly/cmscyoutube2

[@DatCursingMidget]

First I wanted to say that your content is absurdly great and I have been recommending it to everyone I know, you are basically handing out money on this channel haha. I was curious. What about the effect of multiway pots? It seems like this would have a substantial negative effect on redline. MDFs in three way pots are much smaller. For example, in a heads up pot you will fold only 25% of your range to a 1/3 pot bet, whereas in a three way pot facing a 1/3 pot bet, just the combined action of you and the person behind you must result in a total fold percentage of 25%, so that you and the person behind you can each fold 50% of your ranges without giving the bettor excess fold equity (in practice a bit more or less taking into account positional advantages). In other words for this sizing you will fold double the hands you would in a three way pot as a heads up pot. If a significant number of pots go multi-way, which they often do in heavily recreational games at micro stakes and live play, red line will take a massive hit. I wanted to know if you had anything insightful to say about this, or perhaps even some data you are willing to share.

[@matta5749]

Great video. In my experience the people who still believe these things tend to have no willingness to learn though. I’m sure you’ll see some of them in the comments here shortly.

[@agnorax]

You are a prophet among the blind. TBH I'd rather Saul didn't make a video on these things as it's highly profitable having already reached these conclusions independently. The good news is most players lack willingness to learn or change their opinions and play style so nothing will change for most players.

[@joaoguimaraes2411]

Hey Saulo, great video, as always. Just a point I would like to make is that I´m pretty sure population are overbluffing in general, you showed the data so no arguing here. But I still think we need to think critically before just becoming calling stations ourselves lol. For example, even though regs might be overbluffing in general, the data probably is being skewed by the fact most postflop spots are BTN vs BB, or SB vs BB etc, wider ranges. I´m pretty confident a positionally aware reg won´t be overbluffing after opening UTG, as ranges are tighter. You pointed this very quickly, but I think there is a danger in the details, and not looking at this particular detail might end up being worse for our winrates than being a nit after all? Obviously, with recs this doesn´t make much difference as most of them are not positionally aware at all. Cheers, and keep delivering your good content!

[@saulocostapoker]

Hey Joao. Yes, details matter absolutely. The goal of the video is not to get people to become calling stations without critial thinking, but rather to debunk the popular beliefs.

[@susymay7831]

🔥 Poker Misconceptions 🔥 1. Players under bluff 2. Everyone is balanced 3. Red Line doesn't matter 4..Recreational Players can't be bluffed

[@ismiregalichkochdasjetztso3232]

Psychology and data science. I like this approach!

[@julesscharr9307]

Hi, great video as usual. Paradoxicaly, i dont think Low stake Player bluff too mutch because they are too aggressive but because they are too PASSIVE. We miss so many value spot by cheking with good Hands that our value/bluff ratio become Bad even If we are Not crazy bluffers.

[@saulocostapoker]

Thats a great point! It's one of the big reasons why recreationals overbluff (along with playing too many hands preflop). They check back sets sometimes on the river for no reason 😅

[@HigherPowered]

Is there an extra plug in you have for H2N? I recently purchased H2N Edge, followed your steps for "Bet River" report - but my result page is nowhere near as detailed as yours.

[@DiamondForevah]

Love your content man, one thing though: at low stakes I think reg might under bluff, no?

[@saulocostapoker]

Depends on the line, sizing sequence, positions, etc. But even at low stakes, many lines, particularly in wide formations (involving BTN, SB and/or BB) are overbluffed.

[@pistihufnagel7725]

Great video! One question: aren't the river bluff frequencies with the actual hand categories heavily skewed? Because of the card removal effects if you bluff with nothing you get called much more than if you have 2 pairs for example. Your point can still stand if the differences are really big but even a GTO bot should have more bluffs in it's range when it goes to showdown compared to the "optimal bluffing frequency".

[@saulocostapoker]

Thats a great point! This effect you are describing is called "showdown bias" amongst those who study population tendencies. It is a true phenomenon, since we can only see river betting composition when someone calls, and usually calling ranges will have positive removal effects on the bettors value range. This has been researched over the years by me and a few other coleagues, and we estimate this effect to be something between 1% to 3%. It is heavily dependant on spot and range configurations. So while it exists, its not big enough to the point we should care much about it, unless we are talking about small perceived deviations, of roughly the size of the bias. In those cases you can't assume much about the range composition. Hope that helped and thank you for your question!

[@SuperSlayinJJ]

This is exactly what I was thinking the whole time. People under bluff the river in low stakes particularly check raising. Don't think I've ever heard "people don't bluff in low stakes" I have certainly heard and agree with "low stakes players do not bluff raise the river"

[@DerangedAussieMan]

Supersaiyan, your comment has nothing to do with the other 2 comments. They're talking about blockers. You're talking about disbelief that low stakes people overbluff certain spots as a whole.

[@jianchengshi9694]

Amazing opinions and analysis bro. Can indeed learn things here.

[@haraldhollander1131]

Great job! Best poker videos since a while. Thanks a lot

[@saulocostapoker]

Glad you liked them my friend!

[@jamsteroffthewheel4731]

Great video!! How did u learn to use this software?

[@n8thegreat445]

Just caught two people bluffing at my 10 dollar buy in game. I had pocket queens and my 4 bet was called by utg and mp (i was button). Board came rainbow and was 3,5,5. Got checked to me, I made c-bet, and one player went all in and another called. I felt i had to put down my queens due to potential AA or KK. These dudes turn over Ace high with 7 kicker and pocket 6’s. People bluff in all games, but this one just threw me for a loop.

[@joe930709]

fish DO bluff, but they do not bluff with correct Fre， correct sizing，and correct spot.

[@FoldinShytPoker]

Working hard so I don't need to work hard... Great content..

[@susymay7831]

Hidden gem channel 💎 💎 💎

[@XfestaX]

Great video. Just a small note, when you are calculating those variations relatively to otpimal frequencies and some population frequencies, you are calculating it wrong, something that goes from 29% to 37% (first example shown on the video), has a variation of 27% more. That means people are overbluffing 27%more than gto on 50% bet sizes and not 8% as you mentioned.

[@saulocostapoker]

Hey dude. Don't know what you are referring to. Can you give a timestamp?

[@myrtnh]

What i will say is that generally fish massively overflod river but massively overcall flop and turn because they chase terrible draws way too much, and dont care about equity. Like they will call 75% on flop and turn with a naked gutshot. But then snapfold river when they dont make it.

[@wesch6354]

In my last 2 sessions I made over $200/hr playing live 1/2 just because the "Fish never fold" rumor is actually somewhat true. All I was doing was playing TAG. I bet when I had it and folded otherwise and people were still calling me down every time. Profit over $1600 in 8 hours of play between 2 sessions.

[@CristianGVB]

Hey Saulo, You said you look at calling ranges composition of the villain on the river, is it relevant to do that on flop and turn too? Or frequencies in this case becomes even more relevant to reach the point of not being worth at all? In terms of doing a MDA about, for example just for river, would be a good cost/benefit? Thanks, keep the great work

[@ilares7]

hi @saulocosta, very interesting video indeed just curious what is exactly small and big pots filter in H2N? because for the call vs river raise for instance, we see reg overfolding 11% on big pot but overcalling 17% on small pot, which is indeed a huge difference

[@matyasrujbr997]

Hey guys, I use Hand2Note for my main tracker but I doesn´t work on zoom, any tips ?

[@Komediaa]

Great videos and content , keep it on, please :) I have one question about comparing GTO stats vs HS regs... Don´t you think, that when HS player overfolds, it might be influenced by the opponent's passivity, therefore its just exploit that leads to the different stats?

[@saulocostapoker]

The thing is that most people overbluff, as I showed in the video. For high stakes is the same thing. So HS regs overfolding is definitely a leak that costs them money

[@mathieudurand3933]

Long shot but is there a way to get your postflop diagram you show at 9:16 ? With the different bet sizings and board types ? Thanks !

[@XfestaX]

Does this stats change a lot whn you change SPR?

[@dustynh4288]

Where is the link / pin for the spreadsheet download? Cant see it lol

[@gabrielboily2641]

I'll see if their is a way to do this pool analysis in Pokertracker 4 hopefully fingers crossed. But damn is it hard to rewire what I've learned to be false over the years. I'll have to take a deeper dive into this. I need to know what minimum defense frequency is. Edit: I don't think Pokertracker 4 can do that as detailed as this so I might have to get Hand2note.

[@saulocostapoker]

Yeah cant do it with traditional trackers. Use 'pokermadesimple' code for 10% discount in first purchase of H2N

[@gabrielboily2641]

@@saulocostapoker thank you will take a look

[@robertocarvallo4019]

in h2n the wwsf is not the same as holdem manager wich count the times you win the pot via non showdown so the wwsf in h2n is bigger than normal .... or u manage to create a expression stat with that "anyflpaction_saulo" ?

[@tipsy09]

Fish get to post flop with such weak ranges that you can just barrell them

[@andrewfraancis]

S tier content

[@damianococcia377]

Why do you say that bluff catching rivers impacts your redline?

[@saulocostapoker]

When you fold, all those losses go to your redline. When you call, your redline is unaffected. Therefore, players who bluffcatch more typically have better redlines

[@susymay7831]

​@@saulocostapokerA little understood idea .. great explanation

[@victorcurysimionato6412]

High quality content

[@masterofdesaster7846]

the same reg on a downswing has a lower wwsf than that same reg on an upswing, so not crazy that having a higher one benefits your green line :P good videos tho!

[@saulocostapoker]

Hey mate. While you have a point somewhat, WWSF is mostly impacted by small pots (since those happen many times more often), which means you can be running bad in big pots (and therefore losing in the greenline) and still have a high WWSF. So its not accurate to say that someone has a high wwsf because they are on an upswing, unless we are talking a very small sample. Which is why I filtered for samples of 7.5k hands or higher in my DB

[@masterofdesaster7846]

@@saulocostapoker yeah, all depends on samplesize, but even 7.5k hands is not that big (-1.6bb over that sample is 120big blinds), so if we take it to an extreme, and instead of losing a 240bb pot, they won it - they would be +1.6bb but again (and as you pointed out), i am still cherry picking an extreme case and picking up more uncontested pots, is better! :) (hence getting a higher wwsf, and likely a higher wr)

[@antihackerify]

i really would like to see that gto bot stats, how did u get those?, i would like to know stats like cbet %, vpip pfr 3bet 4bet, etc.. just to compare to some players wich i think could be bots on my games, that would be a good indicator.

[@martinbonev1380]

Hello Sao and first big thanks for everything that you share here! I have a questions about the gto bots. I suppose that they are playing only against other bots and their winnrate is 0bb/100 or even negative after rake, is that true? And if they could play against human population what could be their winrate compared to the HS regs population (with their deviations from the gto) that you mentioned for example? I don't ask for exact number but higher or lower how do you think?

[@johnnyneckar4977]

No one has a perfect answer to that but the first superhuman 6max AI beat top pros for about 4bb/100 (+/-2 due to sample size). Granted that was 2019 so both humans and AIs have improved since then. Google 'Superhuman AI for multiplayer poker' or 'Pluribus' for more info

[@ruanribeiro1484]

I agree 60% with that, even if you compare your students data with the optimal bluff frequency, you can see that in small pots with a 70% pot size bet as a bluff it is really underbluffed, but when the betr sizes go up it is clear that they are not bluffing enough, and if you take raises on the river then it is almost always the nuts.

[@vegavas]

I think he did say that there are not enough bluffs in pot sized bets and overbets.

[@agnorax]

It's the opposite, 50 and 75% sizes are overbluffed. POT is underbluffed. You sound by your comment someone that likely lacks willingness to learn and still believe these things so you do you.

[@Badbentham]

@@vegavas Sounds to me kind of like a Bell curve: Small bets (way below 50% PS) are often either strong or marginal; likely still under-bluffed. "Standard" sizes 50%-75% are notoriously over-bluffed, with random spew ranges. While that other Poker wisdom , "Big bets mean Big hands" , still seems to hold true.

[@MXDRE907]

When compared to GTO, they’re exploitable but when compared to the player pool, are they really? If the player pool is more imbalanced (ie: They have fewer bluffs than GTO, wouldn’t calling at GTO’s MDF frequency be paying off vs ranges that have fewer bluffs than optimal?) Real world is player vs player. Not player vs GTO… It feels like comparing 2 different things as 1:1 correlative that aren’t in lockstep

[@connorcrump3825]

MDF is not a GTO concept but a mathematical concept. So it does work in showing how certain cases can be profitable. Also the point of the video was to show that low stakes ranges do have more bluffs than they need in certain situations. So calling off with bluff catchers is profitable.

[@saulocostapoker]

If population was in fact underbluffing, then the tendency to overfold rivers would be a correct adjustment and a good exploit vs the average player. However, thats not what the data shows. The data shows that most people overbluff rivers, therefore High Stakes regs are getting naturally exploited by the population tendencies

[@VosnoBondJamesbond]

Like your video, but with a 10% rake when you call and win, your optimal call percentage is not realistic. That could explain somethinks

[@Asim-p9f]

If you’re playing somewhere with 10% rake that’s your first problem. Pokerstars has 4% at micros iirc

[@saulocostapoker]

Great point my friend! If you cant expect to win the full pot, then yes you need more equity on the call to breakeven. That being said, in most river spots, the rake cap has already been hit, therefore it doesnt affect what you get when you call

[@ViktoriaDrobysh]

The problem is that if high stakes regulars play GTO how are they suppose to exploit you? If you're exploiting someone you're not playing GTO :) So you won't have stats like a bot

[@saulocostapoker]

Hey Viktoria! Thank you for your input. Maybe you missed it, but the Poker Wisdom I debunked related to High Stakes regulars is the notion that they are all balanced/playing close to gto. Many people have this assumption when they think about the highest stakes in poker, and in the video I show how that's false. Additionally, these deviations that they have relative to solver (at least the ones I showed in the video) cannot be considered good exploitative deviations against population. What I showed in the video is that High Stakes regulars overfold river relative to solver, and also underraise river relative to solver. As I showed in the video, most people overbluff relative to solver, which means that overfolding is actually a very exploitable tendency. When it comes to raising, their tendency is also quite bad because most people fold too much to raises, so if you are not raising enough compared to solver you are getting exploited by population. Hope that clarifies everything! Cheers

[@DaWonky-ot2fm]

hi. It feels like a lot of these wisdom are for live poker like 1/2 or 1/3.full ring The player bool is quite different from online nl2, nl5 or nl25 6max. These two feels like totally different game.

[@matta5749]

All of the stats in this video are from online poker

[@keithdunlap]

I feel as though you are reading my mail. lol

[@saulocostapoker]

What you mean? 🤔

[@keithdunlap]

@@saulocostapoker Sorry.. Just that the video aligns exactly with my thinking and my approach.

[@alvaropinheiro94]

Monstro. Isso ser de graça é um absurdo

[@VladislavKuzin]

Thank you 🔥

[@TheAvuS]

Love you Saulo. Question: what is the best way to gather population's tendencies data?

[@nesterzhzhot]

Very good content. Hello from plo reg

[@mikegoodwin5951]

Saulo my redline is losing and I play 500nl 1knl. I win 8bb on ignition. Also my wwsf is like 48. Why am I doing so well? I see guys with big red line graphs on iggy who dont have better winrate than me. Im confused.

[@agnorax]

Likely means you are doing other things extremely well compared to the pool of regs/recs

[@mikegoodwin5951]

@@agnorax Like what ? Haha Arent the redliners already doing all the bluff catching and bluffing? Whats left for me to do better?

[@mikegoodwin5951]

@@Pocket-AA-Pro bluff catching is redline winrate. If you fold the bluffcatchers you lose red line . There’s lots of guys who redline hard at ignition high stakes tho.

[@agnorax]

@@mikegoodwin5951 You can construct a lot of non-range bet big bet /check strategies and move the game into unfamilair nodes. In small/medium pots you can often better leverage your range and print money and redline using sizings that population can't deal with well even if the EV between a small/big bet is close in a solver but way different vs actual players.

[@lukebruce5234]

@@mikegoodwin5951 you are amazing brother

[@amrita49]

are you saying that if I beat gto bots I'm the best of the best?

[@saulocostapoker]

😅 Yeah man, you would be GOOD

[@amrita49]

@@saulocostapoker I beat slumbot, is it good? he's a nit

[@maxwong3480]

Are you data scientist 😂You said you had coded a GTO bot for data comparison to the player pool,and you also did something like data mining(time tell)

[@saulocostapoker]

I was a software developer before poker. Studied 4 years of computer engineering, then dropped out to pursue poker

[@dane2313198]

I am confused is the MDF stat really correct? Should MDF not be 33% vs pot bet (the same as the optimal bluffing freq). if some one bets pot in a 100dollar pot u call 100 to win (200+100) = 33%. This is ofc a toy game as some of your calls might beat value. Feels like you for to add the call amount to the pot amount

[@17jackh]

33% is the amount of equity you need vs the betting range to call. MDF is the percentage of your range you need to defend, which vs pot is 50% (at least in a toy game as you mentioned)

[@dane2313198]

@@17jackh ah that makes sense thank you!

[@Zamadhi2315]

MDF (in a toy game, at least) is how often you need to defend to stop villain from auto-profiting by betting any two cards. If villain bets 1x pot, his bluffs needs to work 50% of the time to break-even: 50% of the time he wins 1x pot when you fold and 50% of the time he loses 1x pot when you call. If you fold more than 50%, villain can auto-profit by betting all his air.

[@dane2313198]

@@Zamadhi2315 thanks for the explanition!

[@St3.]

At 4:50 thats not a bluff ?

[@saulocostapoker]

No, not really

[@St3.]

@@saulocostapoker thanks so much for your response, didnt expect it :). I recently found your channel and its been really educating to say the least. I'm 19, and currently don't have a big bankroll (only about 1000$). Low stakes grinding is really boring (although I have done it for the last year) and I really want to move on to both higher stakes live and online games/tournaments. Im really dedicated and studying poker 2hrs a day minimum on top of playing. Would you be interested in staking me? If not, do you have any other advice?

[@saulocostapoker]

Don't try to skip any steps. Grinding low stakes might not be what you dreamed of, but it's a necessary step towards the process of getting good. Patience and consistency. Those are the only 2 things you need to succeed in poker. I would also increase those studying hours. 3-4 hours a day is better at low stakes. With more knowledge you can have a much higher winrate, which allows you to build a bankroll much faster than playing high volume with low winrate

[@St3.]

@@saulocostapoker thanks for this, will keep it in mind. Last question: I've been to some poker rooms in London, where I live, and the players there are really bad. I mean the typical very nitty old guys, drunk maniacs who VPIP 80%, and then even the more normal players who generally only play for fun and dont study at all. Do you think it's worth it playing live versus those worse players, or grinding online versus players that are probably much better.

[@dchen0_alt]

Is it possible that variance is confounding both the WWSF and winrate in your database? What I mean is that if a bunch of regs only have a few dozen hands in your DB, the ones that ran better could have both higher WWSF and empirical winrate, making these two appear correlated. Or did you make sure that each player you include has a sufficient sample?

[@agnorax]

He mentioned he only included players in the sample with 7500+ hands.

[@saulocostapoker]

Yep, this ☝🏽

[@dchen0_alt]

@@saulocostapoker Whoops missed this, thank you!

[@emphyriohazzl1510]

Not arguing at all with the conclusions which are quite accurate, but just wanted to point out that when micro stakes fish bet 3rd/4th pair river after a check check turn (sometimes even pot them), it's quite often just overplay, not bluff. For the most inexperienced (or stupid), in their mind they have the best hand so they bet (without any thought wether they can expect to be paid by worse or not.. sometimes it ends up being pure value cuts, so neither a bluff nor a value bet). For the slightly less inexperienced, many still do it and expect their aggressive play to get them paid by worse (which actually happens not so rarely if playing vs other fish or sometimes versus a reg who doesn't know yet which type of profile he's facing, with missed draws on the board, etc.. Folding A high or bottom pair/underpair can be hard against an agressive fish who calls all your cbets and bets river so often when you check turn - especially for fishes or bad regs who are not able to quickly adjust and induce turn and who instead keep barreling all their value and checking only air/weak sd :P). So I don't think you should consider these hands bluffs at these stakes. But the conclusion on not folding too much is spot on (and the fact that pot bets/overbets are much more value oriented as well, although there are some profiles who are major exceptions to these tendencies obviously - iin particular the infamous donk bet pot, barrel pot, barrel pot or overbet shove river with total air that certain adrenaline junkie fishes love to use). Overplaying is among the most frequent tendencies in microstakes and it's partly justified, in a certain measure, by the also frequent tendency to overcall in small pots (it's only really frequent for small pots) and by the fact that most players at these stakes (even many regs) are not super observant of hands they don't play in, and for them seeing cheap showdowns is the fastest way to profile players. But there is certainly plenty of bluffs in micros and low stakes for sure. Many players, both regs and fishes, are quite unbalanced when it comes to sending a third barrel river though (way too much value oriented), and that stays partly true up to NL25 included usually, but some regs are playing ultra exploitative and are at the contrary bluffing way too much compared to GTO. NL50 most regs are quite happy to third barrel overbet bluff river and start to be a bit more balanced in general (maybe not on GGpoker and a few other rooms where NL50 is softer).

[@Sejdr]

I understand that compared to GTO the data shows that people "bluff" in micros, but the data presented is obsevartional data and your argument is post hoc. Observational data only shows a correlation between betsize and the equity in this case. You can't make a post hoc assumption that it is a bluff since bluffing is intentional in its nature - in the example you mentioned as the line went the person betting on river might have thought it was a value bet. Overall for this video: We have no idea of the size of the sample or if the sample is skewed in any way and thus the arguments you make (even if I may agree with them) are just not validated.

[@lukebruce5234]

keep coping

[@agnorax]

I literally have a graph of EV 10bb/100 from a near 150k hand sample from nl25-nl100 playing redline. I reached similar conclusions independently from Saul regarding pop tenancies and sizings/ranges. Vils and that includes recs are way way way over folding. Even regs in micros overbluff in certain nodes, when you're aware of this you can start to construct your ranges accordingly and print money. You're in denial right now and it's why you won't improve.

[@lukebruce5234]

@@agnorax Recs underfold on the flop but at least according to my MDA they usually overfold on the river in virtually all spots.

[@agnorax]

@@lukebruce5234 agreed

[@Sejdr]

@@agnorax You obviously failed to understand my point and have no clue about scientific methodology, evidence and argumentation. I can separate my own biased opinion from an objective analysis of what is presented.

[@Scottjf8]

People need to be staked for $2NL?

[@saulocostapoker]

Perhaps not at 2nl, but in developing countries like Brazil and many others, a solid bankroll for 25nl is already a substantial amount of money. So we just keep it simple and stake everyone from the ground up. Allows people to move up in stakes faster, so both player and company make more money

[@Scottjf8]

@@saulocostapoker true true. Been enjoying your vids

[@mongingermain4911]

top vidéo !!

[@almostthere9746]

Pure gold

[@jakepokervegas]

Nice video, thabk you. But to much fluff and talking. This video could have been easily 10min instead of 30min. On this times people like to see a lot of content but if it is to long people will get tired and leace and if it can be said in less time is better for you and for the viewer. Thank you again.

[@saulocostapoker]

Thank you for your feedback mate, appreciate it 👊🏼

[@jakepokervegas]

@@saulocostapoker thank you for the video bro. I give you the feedback with the best intentions, a constructive criticism. ;)

[@Callamatteomatisch]

Couldnt disagree more. Each of the 4 points would have been worthy of an entire 30 min video (but were not on RunItOnce ofc).

[@jakepokervegas]

@@Callamatteomatisch I respect your position, maybe for you is ok, but for me I think it could have been said faster. And is not because I don't like the topic, I love it, but... As a general rule for youtube the faster you can say what you want to say the better for all, for the creator because he Will achieve better retention rates, and for the viewer becasue we can learn more stuff in our limited time. But your point is ok, some people has more time to spend.... And is not possible to make all happy. See yaaa.

[@Yerbderb]

All generalizations are false. Including this one.

[@lukebruce5234]

🤡🤡🤡

[@saulocostapoker]

Isn't that a paradox? You are saying ALL generalizations are false, which is a generalization in itself. Then, if you are right, you must be wrong at the same time. ... Can't agree with you on that one. Some generalizations are true!

[@Yerbderb]

@@saulocostapoker yes it’s supposed to be a paradox 😜

[@saulocostapoker]

Oh didn't get the joke 🤦🏽😅🤣

[@susymay7831]

On average, not true.

[@DerangedAussieMan]

When people talk about "no one bluffs at low stakes" I think they're mainly referring to either low stakes live ($1/$3 NL live and under) or micro stakes online (10NL online and under). Most people recognise that people playing 50z-100z on Stars are quite competent and capable of bluffing.

[@saulocostapoker]

Don't think that's accurate...would definitely not agree that "most people think 50z regs are competent". That being said, it doesn't matter. They are all wrong anyway 😅 Data showed in the video is for microstakes - 25nl and lower, heavy on 5nl and 10nl hands. No matter the context, it's just not factual that most people don't bluff sufficiently. What happens is that the people who say this don't actually know how much one is supposed to bluff to be balanced to begin with. Hint: it's not much.

[@susymay7831]

​@@saulocostapoker Great observation that correct GTO bluffing frequencies are usually lower than most people would guess

[@richardedwards9044]

No one says this stuff.

[@kingmerlyn4615]

Last time i played it was 1/2 and i caught at least 7 bluffs over 6 hours of play. Tripled my chips. 300 to 910.

[@robmela]

good job 👍👍

[@agnorax]

WOW what empirical data ! what a sample size! Amazing

[@lukebruce5234]

@@agnorax empirical data prove him right 🤡🤡🤡

[@saulocostapoker]

DOWNLOAD OPTIMAL FREQUENCIES SHEET 👇🏼 courses.saulocosta.poker/optimal-frequencies-sheet

[@sergiocarrasco9762]

The link is broken

[@richiericch2737]

Español porfavor uu

[@matta5749]

He doesn’t even speak Spanish. He’s Brazilian

[@pudelinocacalat2951]

BS

[@lulu.r.b]

Its not false But partly true Very few are bluffing.