# Beginner Frequency Question Here

Red Chipper Posts: 24 ✭✭
So I'm exploring frequencies for the very first time (very exciting stuff!) and I have a kinda nitpicky question:

When calculating our cbet range at 70%, should we be calculating this 70% from our original range, or 70% of the combos we can now hold OTF?
In other words lets say we have 162 combos in our MP open range. Flop comes out K42 rainbow and we can now only hold 142 combos. Are we looking to cbet 113 combos or 99? I would think 99.

OR is what really matters finding double the value bets and cbetting from this pool? I think I would call 39 combos value here so are we looking to cbet around 120 combos?

ALSO (very nitpicky) should we be including in our cbet combos the hands we would mostly XC (KK) or sometimes XR/XC (44, 22)?

Thank you so much for any response!!!
«1

• Red Chipper Posts: 1,309 ✭✭✭✭
edited December 2017
You have to use the available combos. In other words, use the adjusted combos after the flop cards are considered. Otherwise, your betting range would include hands/combos that can't exist due to card removal.
• Red Chipper Posts: 24 ✭✭
Thank you bigburge10. Seems in this example we would have way more than 33% values in our range. Would we count our nuttiest hands (sets) as part of the 70%?
• Red Chipper Posts: 1,309 ✭✭✭✭
I might be misunderstanding your question, but I think this might help:

You start with 162 combos. The flop comes K42r, and this brings you down to 142 combos. Next, using 70% as a general rule, we want to bet 70% of our hands. So, 142*70%= 100. Next, on the flop, we're looking for a 2:1 value to bluff betting ratio. So, of the 100 hands we'll bet, we want 33 for value and 67 for bluff.

So, on this board, the value will likely be the sets (3 combos), overpairs (6) combos, and then top pair (39 combos). This adds up to 48, so we'll notice that we can check back some top pair hands.

Next, we can pick out 67 bluffs. I always feel like these require the most thought. We might consider hands with good blockers, back door equity, non-robust equity, etc.

Beyond this, you can start to review each of these ranges (value & bluff) to see how they look. For example, you may look at the value range and question whether you want to bet KK. Or you may begin to wonder how your checking range looks. And then, the rabbit hole is dug, and you're late for work the next day.
• NetherlandsRed Chipper Posts: 208 ✭✭
Where does the 70% come from actually? Is it based on winning players' stats or is there some mathematical reason? Sorry for breaking the flow of the conversation here but feels like the right place to (finally) ask.
• Red Chipper Posts: 1,365 ✭✭✭✭
Luuk v wrote: »
Where does the 70% come from actually? Is it based on winning players' stats or is there some mathematical reason? Sorry for breaking the flow of the conversation here but feels like the right place to (finally) ask.

+1
• Red Chipper Posts: 1,551 ✭✭✭✭
@kenaces , @Luuk v and others
it comes from "Poker's 1%: The One Big Secret That Keeps Elite Players on Top" from Ed Miller
• Red Chipper Posts: 2,633 ✭✭✭✭
edited December 2017
It comes from an assumption that you'll play for stacks and bet 75% pot on each streets.

It's a formula.

If you would bet 75% pot on each street, you'd have to remove 30% of your range each time, hence continuing 70% of the time.

It is math.

When you go this way, you have 2:1 bluff ratio on flop, 1:1 on Turn and 1:2 on river.

Since you shove River in a 3B Pot or PSB river in a SRP and have a 1:2 ratio you're suppose to make the opponent indifferent to call or fold
--->Pot Odds

• Red Chipper Posts: 2,633 ✭✭✭✭
EDIT:

You don't necessarily have to PSB River as my example show.
• Red Chipper Posts: 4,240 ✭✭✭✭✭
Octavian I wrote: »
Reading the players on your table and acting against that tendency of that table is the key to the money vault.If someone don’t understands that poker is about people instead about what cards they're holding, they will have a tough time ever winning.

I'm confused. I thought you said "In the last analysis, for all of us the great and super strong players of Las Vegas (the locals, so to speak), it comes down to manipulate the SPR."

• Red Chipper Posts: 4,240 ✭✭✭✭✭
Octavian I wrote: »
That flop of yours K42 is very static. Whoever is the leader on that flop, he's most likely to be the leader all the way to the river. Only an Ace could change that.

Not to mention a 2, 3, 4, 5, or 6.
• NetherlandsRed Chipper Posts: 208 ✭✭
It comes from an assumption that you'll play for stacks and bet 75% pot on each streets.

It's a formula.

If you would bet 75% pot on each street, you'd have to remove 30% of your range each time, hence continuing 70% of the time.

It is math.

When you go this way, you have 2:1 bluff ratio on flop, 1:1 on Turn and 1:2 on river.

Since you shove River in a 3B Pot or PSB river in a SRP and have a 1:2 ratio you're suppose to make the opponent indifferent to call or fold
--->Pot Odds

I'm confused. Where does this example show you need to c-bet 70% of the time?
• NetherlandsRed Chipper Posts: 208 ✭✭
"If you would bet 75% pot on each street, you'd have to remove 30% of your range each time, hence continuing 70% of the time."

Why do I have to remove 30% of my range?
• Red Chipper Posts: 4,240 ✭✭✭✭✭
Luuk v wrote: »
Why do I have to remove 30% of my range?

To maintain the bluff ratios:

"When you go this way, you have 2:1 bluff ratio on flop, 1:1 on Turn and 1:2 on river."

If you don't like those ratios, you can change how much you remove from your range, but it's pretty normal to bluff more often earlier in the hand. The later in the hand you go, the more evidence your opponent has something/is not folding.

• Red Chipper Posts: 817 ✭✭✭
I would recommend watching James new series on 1% or perhaps reading ed’s Book.
• NetherlandsRed Chipper Posts: 208 ✭✭
jeffnc wrote: »
Luuk v wrote: »
Why do I have to remove 30% of my range?

To maintain the bluff ratios:

"When you go this way, you have 2:1 bluff ratio on flop, 1:1 on Turn and 1:2 on river."

If you don't like those ratios, you can change how much you remove from your range, but it's pretty normal to bluff more often earlier in the hand. The later in the hand you go, the more evidence your opponent has something/is not folding.

So if my understanding is correct, if we c-bet 70% of the time we can maintain those ratios on flop, turn and river. These ratios are important why, though? Why aren't we more interested in 1.5:1 or 2.5:1 on the flop? And why 1:2 on the river and not 1:2.25? They're pretty ratios but where do they come from?

I'm way out of my league here (never looked at poker like this before -- sorry), but I'm trying to understand this stuff about frequencies and more specifically where all these "desired" ratios and frequencies come from.
• Red Chipper Posts: 2,633 ✭✭✭✭
It's a math formula. Simple as that. If you want it I'll post it.
• Red Chipper Posts: 38 ✭✭
tfazio wrote: »
I would recommend watching James new series on 1% or perhaps reading ed’s Book.

+1. This exact question is asked and answered in the 1% video James put out. I got an email asking if I want to attend the webinar, I couldn't, I got a follow up email with a link to the recording of the webinar. So, it's out there and it's probably free.

James explained in the webinar that this 2:1, 1:1, and 1:2 ratio of bluff to value on flop, turn and river comes from Ed Miller's book (Poker's 1%), which in turn comes from Matthew Janda's Applications of No Limit Hold Em, and probably is also discussed in Janda's No Limit Hold Em for Advanced Players.

All of these books explain what Adam is saying, lay out the math and the reasoning behind it all.
• Red Chipper Posts: 2,633 ✭✭✭✭
The important thing is understanding that all this comes from the sizings used on each streets. Then using a math formula we can determine how many hands we need to remove on each street when we bet.
• Red Chipper Posts: 2,633 ✭✭✭✭
edited December 2017
@Luuk v

The first thing you need to understand is every bet sizing you make should give you an optimal bluff numbers of combos that goes along your value. This is determined by pot odds.

An example would be a PSB(Pot Size Bet) on the river. The odds you are offering to the opponent should tell you the optimal numbers of bluff combos that should go along your value, so in this example when you bet 1 into 1, the opponent need to be good 33% of the time to break-even. 1/(1(Pot)+1(Bet)+1(Call))=33%.

So you need to bluff optimally 33%. So in this case it would be 2 values for 1 bluff(1/3=33%). This way the opponent needs to be right 33% of the time to call with his weakest bluff-catcher. So you can reduce the EV of Villain’s decision to zero by bluffing exactly 33% of the time.

But not only this gives you a frequency(ratio) for River but essentially you can determine now what would be your optimal betting ratio on Turn taking into account the sizing you used on Turn.

Like i said, it is basic math and easy to do. Let's say you pot Turn, you got exactly the same ratio for bluffs and value as you have on River.

So you bet 66% value River and 66% Value Turn. To know the optimal bluff/value ratio on Turn you just need to multiply both value frequency, so in this case it would be 66%*66%=0.4356

This number is the frequency(ratio) of your optimal value on Turn.

So ~44% Value and 56% Bluff.

Now all this is great but you can do the same process for Flop. Let's say you pot flop, it gives you the same 66% value as for Turn and River.

Now you multiply your value frequency Turn which is ~44% by your value frequency Flop which is 66% and it gives you 0.287496

This number is your value frequency Flop.

You would bet ~29% value and 71% bluff.
***

So now that you know how to calculate your ratio let's get back to the 70% example.

As i already showed with the excel sheet, when you want to retain a 70% continuance range it will imply that you bet 75% Pot on each streets.

Let's see this again on the next picture in a 100BB environment.

Notice the 75% Pot size on each street, then what frequency we get on Turn and River for betting and notice what i circled, those are the bluff/value ratio which are pretty close to 2:1 - 1:1 - 1:2

You were wondering why 70% now you got a good idea. You want to have a 2:1 value/bluff ratio river so to optimally do this in concordance with your sizing you should bet 75% pot River.

But all this ultimately should show you more then anything the importance of crafting your sizing in relation with your range and how you want to be constructed and land on the next street of play.
• Red Chipper Posts: 4,240 ✭✭✭✭✭
Luuk v wrote: »
These ratios are important why, though? Why aren't we more interested in 1.5:1 or 2.5:1 on the flop? And why 1:2 on the river and not 1:2.25? They're pretty ratios but where do they come from?

They're somewhat arbitrary and there's no reason we know for sure they are correct. If you read the sources you'll understand the rationale, but those numbers aren't perfect science. They're not related to anything specific and known for certain, like the area of a circle is pi(r**2), and pi=3.14. If you have reason to believe that in your games your opponents are calling with a different frequency, you can use different numbers.

• Red Chipper Posts: 2,633 ✭✭✭✭
@jeffnc

This shows why it is important to plan ahead, because we can know based on SPR, stack depth and runouts if :

A) This board will play for stacks with big hands based on board dynamism and ranges assumptions.

B) What will likely be our sizings line when we do so or not and on which streets.

The differences in sizings doesn't greatly modify the 2:1 1:1 1:2 ratio. So once we can pretty much estimates our sizings on each streets we can pretty much define how we want to construct in relation with the SPR, Stack Depth, Range assumption for V and Runouts perspective.
• NetherlandsRed Chipper Posts: 208 ✭✭
Thanks guys
• Red Chipper Posts: 817 ✭✭✭
Also I might add thta, Andrew Brokos did a 5 video series here on RCP on Barreling that could be helpful as well.
• Red Chipper Posts: 1,365 ✭✭✭✭
Red wrote: »
@kenaces , @Luuk v and others
it comes from "Poker's 1%: The One Big Secret That Keeps Elite Players on Top" from Ed Miller

Ugg while I am a fan of Millers' writing, and his early book on LHE was critical for me back in the day - I feel like this naive 70% rule just leads people to do dumb stuff and waste lots of study time. So many factors go into good CB frequencies that just building a strat based on some arbitrary 70% is a big mistake
• Red Chipper Posts: 2,633 ✭✭✭✭
It's not dumb stuff obviously, it's the core of betting and sizings in No-Limit Hold'em. If you don't get it you'll have a very big piece of the puzzle missing.
• Red Chipper Posts: 2,633 ✭✭✭✭
edited December 2017
It's the base on which rely the understanding of constructing your range through betting and sizings. How can it be not useful.

It's important to understand frequency in today's game and probably even more important live since you don't have a HUD that simply tells you where evrybody are at.

I just don't see how you can say that it is not important.

I thought you were intelligent enough to understand and see that the "70%" is only a first level approach. Obviously when you understand the concept, that need to take a number to be explained, and that number is pretty right nonetheless as shown in my example, then you understand how bets and sizings relate to how you construct your continuation range.

But it's ok, you're clearly part of the old 2006 culture of "How" but many needs to know "Why" now given the state of today's game. The "How" died in 2011.
• Red Chipper Posts: 1,365 ✭✭✭✭
It's not dumb stuff obviously, it's the core of betting and sizings in No-Limit Hold'em. If you don't get it you'll have a very big piece of the puzzle missing.

Alright maybe "dumb" is the wrong word but chasing 70% CB without considering all the other factors is 100% wrong.
• Red Chipper Posts: 1,365 ✭✭✭✭
It's the base on which rely the understanding of constructing your range through betting and sizings. How can it be not useful.

I and many others have been examining frequency/balance rations long before Miller's 1% book was released so I don't consider it the base of anything. If you were referring to bluff/bluff ratio as the "base" I will agree that it is an important factor to consider when thinking about "balanced" or GTO strat BUT it isn't too hard to find spots where this ration approach falls short.
• Red Chipper Posts: 1,365 ✭✭✭✭
It's the base on which rely the understanding of constructing your range through betting and sizings. How can it be not useful.

It's important to understand frequency in today's game and probably even more important live since you don't have a HUD that simply tells you where evrybody are at.

I just don't see how you can say that it is not important.

I thought you were intelligent enough to understand and see that the "70%" is only a first level approach. Obviously when you understand the concept, that need to take a number to be explained, and that number is pretty right nonetheless, then you understand how bets and sizings relate to how you construct your continuation range.

But it's ok, you're clearly part of the old 2006 culture of "How" but many needs to know "Why" now given the state of today's game. The "How" died in 2011.

Here is my biggest problem with the "70% rule of thumb" - if we open UTGvBB on get K72r should we bet same frequency and use same sizing compared to SBvBB?

Should we use our limited study time to build arbitrary polarized 70% CB range strat that will often be wrong because we defaulted to 3/4PSB sizing?
«1