analysis of an induced bluff

[heeeehawwww]

http://www.pokerhand.org/?1033101

Did I play this hand correctly? I have no info on the villian and I thought if I made a small bet thatI could induce a bluff. The reasoning behind me not reraising him after his induced bluff was that only a better hand could call. Was this correct? Should I have value shoved after the villian bet on the river? Thanks for your help guys

[Panic__NL]

I would have cbet that flop, bet the turn and value bet the river, so there was no way i was inducing a bluff with this hand.
But as played I think this is good.

[czGLoRy]

if you induce a bluff, you have to call the bet. If you try induce a check or a smooth call, you have have to fold to a bet/raise.
-Sklansky

[Brian O'Nolan]

[ QUOTE ]
I have no info on the villian and I thought if I made a small bet thatI could induce a bluff.

[/ QUOTE ]
This is a bad play at all levels when you don't have a read on the villain and an even worse idea in general at uNL. There just isn't that much bluffing- there are some players you can peg as bluff-happy but they are in the minority. Here I think I shove the river... aces up calls you a lot. If villain turned a straight good for him... but I expect to hear from him on the turn most of the time in that case. Also don't post results in the future as it skews advice to being results-oriented.