stupid math question

yeah that seems correct

I don't think that is necessarily correct, because if he bets his 16 combos of value hands for value, and bets 50% of his 16 combos of bluffs, that leaves 8 combos unaccounted for. This is assuming that you don't mean that you are facing a river bet, which in that case I think you are correct.

Are you talking about the equity of the other 8 combos? I'm assuming the 16 combos is just 4 combos of suited + 12 combos of an unsuited unpaired hand so on the river or at any other spot assuming there's no flush draw, the 16 combos would have roughly the same equity aside from a backdoor flush draw.

no I'm not, I guess you edited your post to make it more clear, however it's still wrong I think because if he is betting 16 combos for value that beat us, 8 combos of bluffs that he bets that beat us, and 8 combos of bluffs that we beat, that is the same as 24 combos of value and 8 combos of air.

oh ok I meant he bluffs 50% of the time with hands we beat, not he bluffs with hands we beat 50% of the time and bluffs with hands that beat us 50% of the time. I'll edit to make it clearer.

yeah but our EV on the river is different against that a range that bets 100% of the time, 16 combos for value and 8 as bluffs; and a range that bets 16 combos for value, bets 8 as bluffs, and then check/folds 8.

why is it different? I'm only taking into account the range that he bets with, if he check folds it's not a bluff.

On April 29 2010 17:47 zulu_nation8 wrote: why is it different? I'm only taking into account the range that he bets with, if he check folds it's not a bluff.

If you are only considering when he bets then yeah it's the exact same thing, you don't need math to verify it since he is LITERALLY betting 16 combos for value, and 8 combos as bluffs in that situation.