My (Flawed) Theory of Bluffing

[Phresh]

[ QUOTE ]
While you have put in considerable amount of time in posting this, the truth is that you simply do not understand the math behind poker and how valuebetting and bluffing is correlated.

[/ QUOTE ]

TEELLLL MEEEE!!

[Jay Riall]

I think its pretty obvious that a bet can be both good with air and a good bet with the nuts at the same time.

[Isura]

cliff notes: john kane wins at poker with a nit style.

[john kane]

MDMA, i would agree with you that bar the basics of outs maths, i have never studied the math behind making moves, plays etc, mainly becuase i've been churning out a $200+ hourly rate for months and not needed to concern myself with improving my game. Only since I've started to struggle in terms of both with my game and my mentality have I know started to change my game and question it.

donkeykong, i think that's pretty much it, i just need to realise when i'm not getting called and loosen up, and vice versa, just sometimes i get too tempted to make a play, in fact sometimes i just see a way to win a hand and will go for it (a.k.a chunky raise) without really working out if it is a long term profitable play.

Jay, I understand that with a good hand you have to bet it, and with air if he has a high enough % of folding, then it is wise to bet as well.

just i found/find myself trying to get over in my head that being $x on the turn into $y pot, and thinking 'wait a minute, i'm thinking "fold fold fold, please fold, i have crap" whereas sometimes betting and playing the exact same way ill be "zomg, please call, i have you so beat, call call call mother of god, please call".

and then i thought wait a minute, is there a better strategy out there, hence this post.

[john kane]

are there any books you would recommend i purchased to improve my game?

and isura, back to nitville i go [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[tommo]

hey john. I think I read something like "I don't like bluffing regs when it is likely I'm bluffing because they look me up".

As it turns out there are times you can bluff people effectively even if they know with 100% certainty that you would bluff in your position. This situations occur when your opponent realizes your range has him thoroughly beat, and that your bluffing hands are in the minority.

Probably a really simple concept, and I'm sorry if it doesn't contribute at all.

[Isura]

[ QUOTE ]
are there any books you would recommend i purchased to improve my game?

and isura, back to nitville i go [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

I've heard mathematics of poker is decent.

[cowpig]

If (a) your opponent has a weak hand, and (b) you can represent a strong one such that he'll believe you have it, bluff.

These days better players don't invest a lot of money for value if they know they will have to fold to a raise from an aggressive player, so spots where (a) applies become tougher to find.

[john kane]

Thanks for the replies, maybe it is just a 'feel' thing, but I really think there must be some math behind it all. I was thinking of buying mathematics of poker, may take the plunge and get that. Maybe surprisingly I am very good at math, just not poker math, in that I've spent no time really studying the math side of the game, more just general strategy ideas.

[ QUOTE ]
(b) you can represent a strong one such that he'll believe you have it, bluff.

[/ QUOTE ]

too often (and i am guilty of this) that even if they think your bluffing they call you anyway, so I will definitely work out who I can bluff and who I can't before trying anything fancy.

[student_of_game]

John, I think the issue (as others have pointed out) is whether you are interested in optimizing your win rate when it comes to less ABC plays. Right now it seems like you aren't incorporating other information like history, table image, table ebb and flow, opponent's tendencies, etc., to surmise with sufficient certainty whether you are dealing with a bluff or real hand.

If this is (more or less) a weighted coin flip for you and you are either EV neutral or negative, then from a pure profitability standpoint you are correct to avoid those situations (since it reduces your variance without decreasing your profitability). However, if you are looking to improve your win rate, improve, etc., albeit at a likely increase in variance, then it might make sense to understand how to navigate these situations more profitability.