Bluffing v. Value Betting- How far off is this?

[CobraGoat]

Value betting:

You should BET when there are more hands that will call the bet that you beat than those that beat you.

You should CHECK when there are more hands that will call the bet that beat you than those you beat.

Bluffing:

You should BET when there are more hands that will fold that beat you than those that will call.

You should CHECK when there are more hands that will call that beat you than those that will fold.

------

I recognize that this is oversimplified and maybe downright wrong but i am currently trudging through a stretch of mediocre play and during these periods of time (when things are clicking I obviously think I'm infallible) i find myself suddenly mystified as to the point of poker.

Right now I am really fixated on the concept of value. I am always thinking of my opponents range and then I am thinking "if I bet here what hands are calling?" How do I get value out of this hand? But unfortunately for me, that is where the thought progression is ending. And I have found myself predictably betting my made hands of varying strength for value BUT...any and all bluff opportunities that arise these days just dont make sense.

This has gotten to the point where i am questioning all of my cbets whether im in position or out and this from a guy who, until recently, bet 100% of flops when checked to as PF aggressor and bet like 75% oop when the PF aggressor.

I realize that my opponent missed the flop often enough to make cbetting constantly +EV but I can't help but think im minimizing any value in the hand.

And maybe thats just it, the value in a bluff is what is there versus what could be made with a made hand.

I realize I am rambling but I would appreciate anyones thoughts on the above to help me better understand why I bluff and how to apply this knowledge.

[jonyy6788]

I really don't understand your topic.

You should really never be bluffing at uNL.

C-bets are NOT bluffs!

[CobraGoat]

how are cbets not bluffs? by definition a cbet is a bet made in continuance of your initial aggression with or without a made hand.

What don't you understand about the topic? I am not trying to be snide, I am just interested in what I wrote about and if it is not clear than I am not going to get very good responses.

[CobraGoat]

also, I think the point I am trying to discuss is how closely intertwined betting for value is with bluffing. yet based on the idea of maximizing the value in a hand i feel that I really understand why we value bet and when to value bet etc. but i do not feel this way about bluffing.

I realize the bluffing frequency at uNL should be much lower than other levels of poker, however even the worst players online will figure out that I am a nit who only continues on past the flop with a strong hand if i never bluff.

[C4LL4W4Y]

Elaborating on what jonyy said, in most cases uNL should be treated as valuetown 101. In general, put money in when you think you're usually ahead.

Bluffing at uNL can exist, but when it does it's usually in the form of a 'value bluff' against weak-tight opponents that are telling you they will fold, and thus announcing there is more value in betting certain board textures w/ air than by checking back a missed hand.

[C4LL4W4Y]

C-bets aren't bluffs because they are generally value bets. There is usually value in both your aggression and the board texture you're c-betting at.

A bluff, on the other hand, is the articulation of a story that you tell to your opponent in order to make him fold. The best way to figure out whether or not he will is to observe his postflop tendencies - does he have the tendency to float c-bets and shut down on scare-card turns or rivers? Does his c/r mean air on the flop, and will he shut down once he meets resistance to his beloved move? Bluffing is opponent based, because he is supposed to be the one that understands what you're trying to say - i.e. 'I have a big hand'.

[CobraGoat]

I have always treated uNL as valuetown.

I guess I need to just stick with that idea. It just seems odd that bluffing is largely unnecessary.

But i guess I dont understand certain players with fairly lagish stats killing uNL. overtime at .1/.25 my stats have tightened from 25/15/2 to 19/16/3 and with that tightening my bb/100 have jumped up. I also notice that as I bluff less and make less crying calls on the turn and river my bb/100 improves. again though, it just seems odd that bluffing should play almost no part in a solid uNL strategy.

[C4LL4W4Y]

I mean the best handreaders can play a bunch of hands, but to be frank 19/16 is perfect for 25NL...there are too many villains that don't know how to fold.

There are plenty of weak/tight regs that can be bluffed on a fairly regular basis, however.

[CobraGoat]

i feel like the latter lately.