Relevance of the AKQ Toygame
I know that the AKQ toygame is an extreme simplification of poker and that for instance MDF is less applicable on earlier streets. However, are the underlying mechanics shown in that toygame how I should think about the game as a whole? I. e. how to structure my range, how to decide if someone bluffs/calls too much or too little, and eventually how to exploit said deviation? Or is it basically only applicable to this simplified river scenario where one has the perfectly polarized range and the other one only bluffcatchers.
For instance, if I play against unknowns, would the following approach be a good starting point?
as the aggressor
- I build my range (value-to-bluff ratio) based on the sizing I choose (or in other words the odds I lay Villain)
- I then assume a range for Villain and try to get information on if he calls with the correct frequency/portion of that assumed range ("correct" being based on my bet-size and the resulting MDF for him)
- If he clearly calls more, I reduce my bluffs or stop including them at all (and vice versa)
or as the one facing the aggression
- I defend based on the MDF dictated by Villain's betsize
- I assume a range for Villain and try to get information on if the bluff-ratio of his range is in fact chosen according to the pot odds he lays me
- If he clearly bluffs more, I start calling more of my bluff catchers (and vice versa)
6 Replies
You're adding like 7 middle-men to the simple idea of: With close hands, guess how villain is imbalanced
The concept of the AKQ game is really only applicable on a perfectly polarized river spot (even that almost never occurs in hold em, as there are typically some traps and overlap in value hands, etc.)
The general idea is relevant though. Based on the price you are giving your opponent there is a theoretically optimal ratio of bluffs that will make your opponent indifferent to calling or folding. It's just that in real poker there are also other factors like the potential our opponent could be trapping, flop "bluffs" having outs and not being pure bluffs, the need to protect our checking range, etc.
You might try googling minimally exploitative play and maximally exploitative play. Those concepts are relevant to the ideas you were expressing in your post, and reading about them might help increase your understanding. Here's one article I just found with a quick search:
There's also more interesting versions of the AKQ game where we are supposed to bet middle strength hands, despite never folding out better and never getting called by worse.
I was referring to the "classic" AKQ game, but I vaguely remember reading about something like this. It's been a while since I've spent time looking at these toy games though. If you have a link I'd be interested to check it out.
I'm assuming the version you're referring to is simulating an out of position spot? Like the concept of a block bet, and how it can strengthen our range so that the in position player cannot gain as much EV with a polarized range?
One thing I've found to be true in real poker, is that you generally want to maximize the times you're in the polarized role and minimize the times you're in the bluff catching role. The polarized player is the one that's in the advantageous position.
So I will oftentimes value bet thinner than theoretically correct and add additional bluffs as well. It's effective against players who a) don't check raise enough and b) don't protect their OOP ranges enough. A large percentage of lower and mid stakes players fall into these two categories, in my experience.
As an extreme example, I played against one player who I knew would value bet his strong hands OOP, and when he checked he was basically capped to second pair. He also had a tendency to call down very light.
So I went for three streets of large value bets with top pair and a nine kicker (Q9) on a dry queen high flop that ran out clean. He called all three streets and mucked when I showed the Q9. In theory the weakest hand I should've been able to value bet for three streets with was maybe KQ.
Aggression is rewarded in poker (to a point). I've also noticed that when I go on a prolonged downswing or break even stretch, I'm oftentimes taking the passive line too often. I think it's like a subconscious risk avoidance mechanism. As the saying goes, "Scared money don't make money."
Thanks! That's a great explanation of the game theory behind block betting.
