My (Flawed) Theory of Bluffing

[john kane]

I have been having a problem recently replying to many hand posts becuase a lot of the time the play seems reasonable whether it is for value or for a bluff. This is primarily becuase of the increasing number of solid 24/18 players whose hand range it is hard to narrow down, even in 3bet preflop hands.

For example:

$3-$6nl. Villain is a 24/18. Hero playing similar.

Villain raises in CO to $16, his standard raise. button fold, Hero calls in SB, BB folds.

Flop comes 4 [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] 8 [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] 9 [img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img] ($36)

Hero checks, Villain bets $28, Hero raises to $80. Villain pauses for a short while and calls.

Turn K [img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img]($196)

Hero bets $154

Villain.....................

Now what do we expect Villain to do? Personally I think usually he folds. So thus we should like this line for bluffing. i.e. check-raise flop, fire turn should be a bluff line more often that a value line.

But what if turn is a 6 [img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img], how does that affect the situation? Or pairing the board?

My problem is that we really don't know, we are playing our hand through the eyes of what we are trying to achieve. We see we have missed the flop, and occasionally we decide to bluff. However, our line is often the same as when we are playing for value.

Say this hand:

Same hand as before, this time Hero leads flop:

Flop comes 4 [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] 8 [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] 9 [img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img] ($36)

Hero bets $28, Villain raises to $80, Hero calls $52.

Turn K [img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img]($196)

Hero checks, Villain bets $154, Hero shoves for $350 more.

Or what if Hero calls and shoves any river card.

I understand I have used a draw heavy flop, but nonetheless the principle still applies to other hands.

The problem with this plays are that at no point the Villain has shown weakness. Instead our bluff is not based on his weakness, but instead on our high aggression. The problem here is that we will do this with our strong hands anyway, thus it makes it impossible for the opponent to narrow down our hand between a bluff or value betting, and thus we have no true reason as to why he would fold when we are bluffing and why he would call when we have the strong hands, as our plays are fundamentally the same.

Maybe it's just that I'm lost, however, I feel trying to make plays in these type of hands simply isn't worth it. Opponents (mainly 24/18 types) tend to call more often than they should (or at least in my experience anyway) as they don't want to be bluffed off hands.

My problem is summed up in this thread:

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showfl...ue#Post11454395

Where I wrote:

[ QUOTE ]
sometimes we bet here thinking 'i have the nuts, i will bet pot/overbet pot to rep a bluff' or 'i have the nuts, i will value bet 2/3 pot' but on the flip side 'he has me beat, i will bet pot/overbet pot to get him to fold' or 'he has me beat, i will value bet 2/3 to rep a value bet with a v.strong hand and he should fold his ace'.

my point is that all sorts of reasoning can come up in our brains, all which justify a different sized bet for a different purpose.

[/ QUOTE ]

I received a reply saying that we should do bluff when we think it is wise to do so when given our experience we know players will typically fold given our play, however, I feel this is pretty much flipping, given everyone differs greatly, and even factors such as mood come into the decision whether you call a big river raise with your mid two pair or not.

So I guess what I'm trying to conclude to myself is that trying to make all these fancy plays at msnl is of limited use, as we take the same leads when playing for value as we do as a bluff, just our minds convince us that he will more likely fold when we are bluffing and he will more likely call when we are value betting, despite the amounts being the same. We do this becuase we can easily justify to ourselves why he would fold/call whether or not we bet 2/3 pot or overbet the pot.

So thus this often massively increases the variance as we are relying on winning the flips of whether our opponents this time decide to call or fold.

So instead, when I come back to playing, I will go back to my old style, where I would focus on the players who called too much, and simply extract my money from them, rather than trying to make plays on 24/18s when I miss the board, and chalking it up as 'well next time I hit I should get paid'.

So, the conclusion to my flawed theory of bluffing, is don't bother the big bluffs where your opponents hand range is wide and your just trying to topple him over with strong lines such as check-raising then lead turn, or pot-pot-pot, instead bluff when you have seen weakness in your opponent (such as floating him then he checks turn) or if you have seen him play weakly on postflop and does fold more often than he should.

I say it's flawed, becuase as with everything it is likely exploitable, plus I'm sure there will be something wrong with it, however, although it may be kind of simplistic in that:

- focus bluffs on weaker players and when stronger players show weakness when you have floated them and they have checked turn/river.

- focus value bets on everyone, especially targetting the players who call too much.

I feel often I am reading on MSNL hand advice where the Hero is simply trying to topple the opponent by showing a lot of aggression, when we have no idea whether Villain is actually weak, given he has shown no weakness by his play, and we are only doing so becuase he has a pretty wide range pf (as 24/18s do).

Anyways, replies most appreciated.