Max Exploitative River Play

Max Exploitative River Play

Howdy grinders,

I'm studying maximum exploitative river play.

I used a spreadsheet to compare the EV of checking versus betting for different equity values / bet sizes.
I then ran a bunch of trials to determine the minimum req fold % (salmon coloured cells) for betting to be better then checking, based on different pot equities (yellow) and bet sizes (green). I've attached a screenshot for reference

For simplicity, let's say we're HU on the river and villain checks to us. We can either check or bet. Any bet will be all in, regardless of which size we choose to use (e.g., we can't be re-bluffed).

My questions are: am i able the infer the following from the spreadsheet?
- if villain doesn't meet MDF for our chosen sizing then the most exploitative strategy is to range bet?
- max exploitative river play goes something like:

1: value bet all hands with >50% equity

2: for hands <50% equity, if req. FF based on our holdings' pot equity (right-most column of salmon-coloured cells) is exceeded , then bet - otherwise check, eg.:
-bet all hands w/40% equity IF villain folds 70%+, otherwise check
-bet all hands w/30% equity IF villain folds 65%+, otherwise check

Very grateful for any feedback I receive!! 😀


) 2 Views 2
15 March 2025 at 06:21 AM
Reply...

4 Replies



Your inferences are incorrect.

The correct inference would be the following:

1. For hands where EV_check ~ 0, then always bet if villain is folding > (bet)/(bet + pot)

2. For hands where EV_check > 0, then you bet only when EV_bet > EV_check

edit*

to add to this:

EV_check is just going to be equal to your equity of your hand vs. villain's range multiplied by the pot

EV_bet is going to have three different terms you'll need to add together:

1) you bet and they fold and you win the money in the middle

2) you bet and they call and you win some % of the time of (pot + bet)

3) you bet and they call and you lose some % of the time of (bet)

and win % is going to be equity vs. villain's range that calls
and lose % is just (1 - win %)


Thankyou for the response!!

I have been struggling to get my head around this.

by Brokenstars k

The correct inference would be the following:

1. For hands where EV_check ~ 0, then always bet if villain is folding > (bet)/(bet + pot)

for EV_check to be 0 would mean that we have no pot equity, is that right?

So can I thus infer that i should bet all hands with 0% equity if villain folds more than his MDF for my chosen sizing?

by Brokenstars k

2. For hands where EV_check > 0, then you bet only when EV_bet > EV_check

I think i understand this.

However, I had thought that the figures in the right-hand column told us the required fold frequency threshold for bet > check based on different bet sizes/pot equity values?


by props101 k

Thankyou for the response!!

I have been struggling to get my head around this.

No problem.

for EV_check to be 0 would mean that we have no pot equity, is that right?

So can I thus infer that i should bet all hands with 0% equity if villain folds more than his MDF for my chosen sizing?

I think i understand this.

That is correct.

However, I had thought that the figures in the right-hand column told us the required fold frequency threshold for bet > check based on different bet sizes/pot equity values?

It's possible. I can't see your equations here and that is why I wrote it out explicitly stating what it would be. You can do the math to double check if they match the values in your cells. I also sort of overlooked that it might be calculated in those cells in your screenshot--my bad. You can click on one of those cells and see if it matches my description of how to set up the equation in my previous post and just double check the math by hand.

The thing you need to understand is if check is 0 ev ... where you have no equity ... but they are folding more than MDF then you might as well always bet those hands because EV_bet is > EV_check (because EV_check = 0 and EV_bet is > 0). For the situation in which EV_check is > 0, then you need villain to fold at a frequency greater than (bet)/(bet+pot) because you want EV_bet to be > EV_check to justify betting instead of checking. The higher EV_check is, then the more they need to fold over alpha (α😉 which is (bet)/(bet+pot).


by props101 k

So can I thus infer that i should bet all hands with 0% equity if villain folds more than his MDF for my chosen sizing?

I think i understand this.

This is pretty much the definition of MDF. It's the frequency you have to call with to prevent any two cards from profiting with a bluff.

by props101 k

However, I had thought that the figures in the right-hand column told us the required fold frequency threshold for bet > check based on different bet sizes/pot equity values?

Just knowing the equity percentage is not enough. The relevant factors are the equity percentage of the CALLING range and the percentage of the time they call, as Brokenstars explained below. The equity of your opponent's hands that will fold is basically irrelevant to you.

by Brokenstars k

EV_check is just going to be equal to your equity of your hand vs. villain's range multiplied by the pot

EV_bet is going to have three different terms you'll need to add together:

1) you bet and they fold and you win the money in the middle

2) you bet and they call and you win some % of the time of (pot + bet)

3) you bet and they call and you lose some % of the time of (bet)

and win % is going to be equity vs. villain's range that calls
and lose % is just (1 - win %)

Reply...