Range merging?

DeucesLive

I'm a bit curious about this concept, so here's a hand where (if I understand it right) I was using range merging- or is this a bit strong for it?

Flop and preflop are quite optional, especially checking back top pair- ordinarily I'd bet it out, but I figured there were very few hands behind that could call, so I'm only going to get action from hands I don't really want.

Turn is best card in the deck for me outside of another queen and gives me draws coming out of my ears- feel I have to bet here. The call makes me think the J has helped him, since his check in position on the flop feels like he has absolutely nothing here. Either it's netted him a draw or he has a jack. My read is he has a jack.

On the river, with it being as bricky as they come and with very few completed draws available, does a shove here look sufficiently like 'the nuts or air' to induce a weak call from 2nd/3rd pair? Is this actually what range merging is- making a play based on the assumption you'd only make that shove if you had nothing or the nuts, therefore making inferior hands call (or as us ordinary poker blokes might call it- a thin value bet?)

Player	Action	Cards	Amount	Pot	Balance
Andy1016	Small blind		200.00	200.00	1700.00
DeucesLive	Big blind		400.00	600.00	2490.00
	Your hole cards	10 Q
spsc1978	Fold
mams	Call		400.00	1000.00	7910.00
Andy1016	Call		200.00	1200.00	1500.00
DeucesLive	Check
Flop
		6 Q 9
Andy1016	Check
DeucesLive	Check
mams	Check
Turn
		J
Andy1016	Check
DeucesLive	Bet		800.00	2000.00	1690.00
mams	Call		800.00	2800.00	7110.00
Andy1016	Fold
River
		2
DeucesLive	All-in		1690.00	4490.00	0.00

LOL_RAISE

looks like fine vbet to me

N1CK

are you valuebluffing?

DeucesLive

That's what I would have always called it, but (as I understand it) 'range merging' is the posh term for it.

I'm just thinking perhaps the hand is a bit on the strong side and stacks a little too shallow to really be that thin- I think with so little behind it's obvious with top pair.

N1CK

This is the original aejones thread from 2p2


I write and talk about this all the time.

I obviously believe that a two-way bet exists.

This bet is basically merging your range. Your range exists as a spectrum from A-Z, for example, and so does his. In any given situation, he'll bet a certain % on the river- for people not on a high level, they'll bet A-E for value, check, F-0 becuase it has moderate showdown value, and bet P-Z as a bluff. These letters are completely randomly assigned and vary by opponent (note that some opponents will check behind a hand with no showdown value giving up obviously, but leave it as these ranges for the example).

So this guy betting strong hands and bluffs is pretty easy to figure out and play against, because you'll be able to call with an exact range (say, A-P, the strongest part of your range) when you think he is bluffing, and fold your medium strength hands and hands with no showdown value (say F-Z in this example).

However, ranges are continuous (obviously, there are points in hand ranges, but not chunks- that is, second pair top kicker, second pair second kicker, second pair third kicker, are ranked a notch above each other, but there are so many of them that they are nearly continuous). When people make bets, we assign what range of hands they would make that bet with, so that at the end of the hand we have an idea where they are and can act accordingly. That much is very obvious. However, when we get to the river, there are many times that we're not sure exactly where we are. Many people just say "we're lost, we don't know where we are." That HAS to happen at times in poker games; people at higher stakes play their hands in deceptive manners so that when you get to the end, you're just not sure if they're slowplaying or calling you down light.

One simple example is this (note this will be oversimplified, but I believe Jason Strasser played a hand like this): You have second pair heads up, let's assume there was a draw on the flop, and it missed on the river. Your opponent checks to you on all three streets, and you bet 2/3-3/4 of the pot on all of them.

When your opponent calls you down with fourth pair, you win.

When your opponent calls you down with top pair weak kicker, you lose.

Some people check here; and checking certainly can't be terrible. However, it makes you much too easy to play against (a lot of this is metagame related, and very hard to explain as a generalization). Therefore, this bet might be neutral in expected value because the frequency that you get called by a worse hand and the frequency that you get called by a better hand somewhat evens itself out.

So, if the middle of your range is of moderate showdown value on the river (F-O, let's say), and you have the right image, your opponent is on the right level, etc., then you should probably go ahead and bet F 90% of the time, G 80%, H 70%, etc. as the strength of your hand decreases. All of these things have many other factors to consider, and placing this in an actual theory post rather than the experience of merging your range is difficult to make someone comprehend. I mean, some people will read this post and never understand it, and some people do it naturally without understanding reasoning behind it.

So then, when you're merging your range, sometimes you will end up "value bluffing." I believe this to be true, whether or not people agree in terminology. Sometimes you are betting for value, and sometimes you are bluffing. You don't exactly know which you're doing- but if you feel like you beat the majority of his range, you bet (in this case, it is primarily for value). However, since we've already established we don't know his exact range, there are going to be times that we bet and he's got a better hand and folds, and there are times that we bet and he's got a better hand and calls, and there are times that we bet and he's got a worse hand and folds, and there are times that we bet that he's got a worse hand and calls.

It's really that simple.

I mean, here's a hand that is a pretty good example:

You have JJ and raise the button, you get 3-bet, and it's HU to the flop.

The flop is Q Q 7. He bets 2/3, you just call.

Turn is a 2. He bet's 2/3, you call.

River is a 7. He shoves.

Now, normally there will be general thoughts about this hand: pairs < 7 got counterfeited, he might think you're weak since you didn't put in a raise before the river, etc. However, if he is merging his range, then you can no longer just say "here I think he's bluffing, I call," or "here I think he's got it, I fold." The reason is that sometimes you will fold, and he'll be like "LOL I have TT I was shoving for value!" and sometimes you'll call and he'll be like "LOL KK ship it bit h."

The point is, if people are on a high level, they aren't always going to know where each other is. If you're playing against some donks at low stakes, you'll know "people always play KK/QQ this way when an A comes on the board" and "people always check behind when this river comes scary and never v-bet the hand I thought they had- therefore they must be bluffing."

But as you move up, that is not the case. The higher level of thought, the more people will merge their range and stumble upon value bluffs.

Now, where there is confusion is in the intent and the result. The confusion causes the term value bluff to be termed when good players are merging their range.