A bluff 400NL

[FeltBelt]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Felt,

You really need to cool it man. MDMA is a top notch poster, and he's one of the few top players that take the time to give deep analysis and help new players out.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, I'm the one that needs to cool it. Lol.

[/ QUOTE ]

You lost it here:

[ QUOTE ]
I do appreciate the condescending post though. It reminds me why I like busting people who bluff $300 on the river in this spot when $150 would have gotten a fold from me if I was going to fold.

[/ QUOTE ]

Poker tough guy ahead folks!

[/ QUOTE ]

Lost what? The Internet Poker Board Respect War? I guess I'll just go kill myself now!

[jlkrusty]

MDMA,

I respect your posts greatly. I am trying to get a handle on what you are saying here. This is what I understand that you are saying (correct me if I am wrong):

The purpose of going all in is to create a situation wherein it would be a mistake to make the call unless he had the nuts or close to it. The reason it would be a mistake to call allin is because you will so often have the nuts or a hand close to it. The play of the hand shows that there is almost no way that he has a monster. Thus, by going all in, you create a situation where it is not profitable for him to call.

If he makes an allin call with a hand like TT, then he is making a pretty serious mistake--whereas if he makes a $150 call with TT, it is less of a mistake.

So, since you would go allin with a monster hand, you should now do so with your bluffing hand. It makes it incredibly difficult for him to play any of the times you go all in. If villian is trying to maximize his game theory, then he has to fold any hand he conceivably has. If villian is not maximizing his own game theory and is prone to make these calls, then we are going to gain a whole lot more in the long run (since we will often have the nuts or some other monster). Thus, Game Theory dictates that you play your bluffs and your monster hands the same way. That keeps your opponents guessing the most. This is a good strategy against a wide range of opponents.

Is that about accurate, or am I missing something?

I also wonder if it is possible that betting less on bluffs and more on monster hands actually maximizes your game theory? This seems unlikely, but makes me wonder if it could be correct against some players. For example, whether you bluff allin or not, you might suspect that playing such will not effect in any way whether he calls when you do make an all in play? That is, say hypothetically that you knew that when your opponent was deciding whether to call either a $150 bet or an all in, he simply flipped a coin. He didn't care what his hand was, how he read you, or whether you bet $150 or all in. He simply flipped a coin every time he was put in this spot. If you knew this, then it would obviously be correct to bet $150 when bluffing, and going all in when you have the nuts. Now, this hypothetical is an extreme example, but I imagine against some dense players you might start approaching the point at which it would be correct to bluff with $150 and go all in with only monsters. Against such a player, you would be maximizing his mistakes.

In the end, though, it seems that against most players, going all in with both your bluffs and your monster hands is the right play.

This is how chess masters play against ametuers. Chess masters do not play a game of chess against the ametuer expecting their opponent to make a mistake. Instead, they play as though their opponent were a master as well. That is, the master is maximizing his game theory, and does not assume that his opponent will ever make a blunder. At some point, the ametuer makes mistakes and the game plays itself out. Now, the master could play differently. He could try to set up traps that a dumb player might fall for, but if the player does not fall for, weakens the master's position. Chess masters don't rely on their opponents being dumb like this. Instead, they play an ideal game of chess and wait for their opponent to make the mistakes.

It seems that you are advocating a similar approach here--that you should play in an ideal way and let your opponent make the mistakes. Don't assume your opponent is like the hypothetical coin flipper I described above. Instead, maximize your play by going all in and making it a mistake for him to call no matter who is.

If I am missing something, please help me understand as I am truly trying to become a better player. Again, thanks for your posts. They are truly helpful.

[ArturiusX]

[ QUOTE ]

Lost what? The Internet Poker Board Respect War? I guess I'll just go kill myself now!

[/ QUOTE ]

Just don't get all hissy when someone starts argueing with on you on a message board set up for the very purpose of argueing.

[ThePenguin]

Great post jlkrusty, i wasn't following the MDMA/Feltbelt arguments well. This is gold. (hope it's right)

[Haiku]

The point MDMA is making (I believe) is that when you bluff you are representing a hand that beats someone, and therefore they fold. If you had AA in this spot and the 3 came on the river, you would certainly shove for a PSB for value. If your bluffs are distinguishable from your value bets, that's a major leak in your game.

It's not a case of "well he's more likely to fold to $300 because it's a bigger bet" but rather you would shove there on this particular board with a big hand (the one we're trying to represent), not bet $150. If we play our bluffs and big hands identically and bluff with an appropriate frequency relative to the percentage of the time we believe he will call, it becomes mathematically impossible for our villain to make +EV plays against us (not that it's remotely possible to reach this level of game theoretical perfection).

[CopTHIS]

[ QUOTE ]
You guys are all approaching this in the wrong way. He's prone to have a weak hand; that's why we are making the bluff in the first place; most players of this kind just don't cold call sets/two pairs/straight on two streets here. Of course I wouldn't do this against a 60/40-type of guy, a real maniac prone to be doing anything and calling anything.

Would you just bet 150 here w/ AA or KK? I don't think so. Yes, if we bet 150 here we can safely fold cuz we got NOTHING. If you bet 150 here w/ AA, are you folding to the raise for 140 more? I don't think you are given his line.

You just cannot reason in a vacuum here; you have to think of what you would do when you have the got damn hand you are trying to represent. If people are going to make heroic calls here (given his line I think we can safely assume that nearly all of the time, anything he is calling w/ is just beating a bluff), how do you punish them the most? By going allin w/ your good hands obviously to charge the the most. If you then want to use the same opportunities to bluff (which you SHOULD do simply because of something called GAME THEORY), then you obviously have to bet the same amount.

Isura, then what DO you think he have? If you don't think he has stuff like that even close to 50% of the hands, then kindly provide a hand range for him.

[/ QUOTE ]

I've not read all the posts on this forum, but a lot of players will bet $150 with a good hand. Not Cardshark obviously, or more aggressive players like that, but some do even with AA or KK. I don't know what OP tends to do.

[smilingbill]

[ QUOTE ]
This is how chess masters play against ametuers. Chess masters do not play a game of chess against the ametuer expecting their opponent to make a mistake. Instead, they play as though their opponent were a master as well. That is, the master is maximizing his game theory, and does not assume that his opponent will ever make a blunder. At some point, the ametuer makes mistakes and the game plays itself out. Now, the master could play differently. He could try to set up traps that a dumb player might fall for, but if the player does not fall for, weakens the master's position. Chess masters don't rely on their opponents being dumb like this. Instead, they play an ideal game of chess and wait for their opponent to make the mistakes.

[/ QUOTE ]

sorry to derail but this is silly. in any game you fare better by adapting your game when playing against much weaker opposition (including chess).

[ahnuld]

MDMA is right, feltbelt you are retarded, and mdma, only like 1/3 of the posters in midstakes understand poker.

[jlkrusty]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This is how chess masters play against ametuers. Chess masters do not play a game of chess against the ametuer expecting their opponent to make a mistake. Instead, they play as though their opponent were a master as well. That is, the master is maximizing his game theory, and does not assume that his opponent will ever make a blunder. At some point, the ametuer makes mistakes and the game plays itself out. Now, the master could play differently. He could try to set up traps that a dumb player might fall for, but if the player does not fall for, weakens the master's position. Chess masters don't rely on their opponents being dumb like this. Instead, they play an ideal game of chess and wait for their opponent to make the mistakes.

[/ QUOTE ]

sorry to derail but this is silly. in any game you fare better by adapting your game when playing against much weaker opposition (including chess).

[/ QUOTE ]

Silly?! No. The problem is that you cannot be 100% certain about what your opponent might fall for. Say that you are a good chess player and are playing against a weak opponent. You decide to try fool's mate against your opponent. Fool's mate is a way to check-mate your opponent in four moves. However, to implement fool's mate, you have to move you queen out. Moving your queen out early in the game is a bad idea. If your opponent counters the fools mate, then you are going to get behind (lose initiative) because your opponent will be developing his other pieces while eventually forcing you to move your queen back to probably the same spot she came from. In essence, you will be wasting two moves (one to move the queen out, and another to move her back). So, you have an "exploitable leak" by trying to implement fool's mate. Unless you are 100% certain your opponent will fall for the fool's mate, you should probably not do it. Again, the reason you should not is because it is an "exploitable leak" that can make you further behind in the game. There are less obviously and less inane traps in chess at various points in the game, but I used the very basic fool's mate as an illustrative example. The point is that a chess master will not play the fool's mate even if he suspects his opponent might fall for it. Instead, the master will make solid moves that will strengthen his chess position regardless of what his opponent does.

Now, returning back to the original poker question. It is my belief that betting $150 instead of all in is an "exploitable leak." While it might not be exploited by my opponent at a $2/$4 table, it is nonetheless an exploitable leak. Here are three reasons why you should move all in instead of bet $150:

1- Your opponent may be able to exploit your leak by recognizing that your bluff bets are different (i.e., smaller) than your allin monster hand bets.

2- Even if your opponent was not able to exploit the leak, you have several other players at the table. They may pick up on your exploitable leak. You could argue that you could make adjustments to every player at the table and play each one of them differently, but that would be hard to get into the mind of every player at the table and know for certain exactly which opponents will be able to exploit this leak and which ones won't. On the average, it is better just to play an optimized strategy in the first place.

3- Even if the majority of the players at 2/4 limits are unable to exploit your leak of betting $150 when you bluff, but moving all in with a monster, you still have reason to "plug" your "exploitable leak." The reason is because most of us want to move up in limits. At 3/6, 5/10, 10/20 etc., the players will be more sophisticated. At some point, the majority of the other players will be able to exploit this leak and you will not do as well at these higher limits. You might move up in limits and find you cannot win the game because you have this leak along with several others you were unaware of. It's best to understand your exploitable leaks so that you can win at higher limits. Thus, even if you are winning at 2/4, you have good reason to fix this leak if you ever want to become a HSNL player instead of a MSNL player.

[shootaa]

just bet the amount that you think has the most folding equity. if its all in, go all in. if u think he'll show you TT if u bet 150, but fold if u go all in... prb wanna push it