An Alternative Play When Inducing Bluffs/Bets

[James.]

[ QUOTE ]
Hmmmmm, I like it the idea, but at the same time, if I raised preflop, and I am headsup, in position (especially against one of the blinds), I just can't imagine checking on the flop.

[/ QUOTE ]

use your imagination, bob t. this isn't exclusive to blind steal scenarios when we've raised from LP. it was just the easiest example to construct.

maybe i shouldn't have included any examples because it's not like these are only applicable to blind steal situations. in fact, against certain opponents it really doesn't HAVE to be a HU spot(though it is most effective with one opponent b/c then you often are sacrificing too much value). i feel like the examples given are hindering the concept more than help explain it.

and i will continue to harp on this: YOUR OPPONENT IS KEY. you must know your opponent's tendencies to viably make this play. i will also add that 2p2ers as a whole(IMO) probably don't check behind on the flop often enough, but that is really sort of a different issue all together and i don't want to derail the thread to that point just yet.

[One Outer]

I like this concept on the surface but I'm concerned about how it may play in a live game. My concern is probably silly though. You advocate doing this only against aggressive opponents for good reason. I just don't come across that many in my live game. I guess that just means I wouldn't have as much occasion to use it.

[James.]

[ QUOTE ]
I like this concept on the surface but I'm concerned about how it may play in a live game. My concern is probably silly though. You advocate doing this only against aggressive opponents for good reason. I just don't come across that many in my live game. I guess that just means I wouldn't have as much occasion to use it.

[/ QUOTE ]

exactly.

[mrcunningham]

James,
I don't play in the aggressive online environment, rather I play in the loose passive live milieu, and what you have posted here is very interesting to me if you look at it from the live perspective. Think about switching the roles in the case of a live table. The aggressive player is actually the 2+2er who hasn't quite adjusted to the passive opponents, and the passive opponents end up playing a lot like what you are suggesting here.

I have seen, and experienced personally, many times where an aggressive (possibly even TAG) player keeps betting while the 'fishy' loose passive player keeps calling. They go to showdown and the fish shows third pair and the more aggressive "better" playing player mucks.

Would you agree that the tactic that you've posted here that is potentially effective in an online game can be 'reversed' to help us understand what we might wish to avoid against a passive live game, or am I just confused?

[ProfessorBen]

Thanks. Hope I see this more online.

[Allday Everyday]

Hey, I think this is great posting James. Good work. Love to read constructive poker thought. Thanks for it.

I'm going to try to get my mind around the idea and experiment a little. See how it goes.

But what about what numbnuts007 just said? IMO the vast majority of players do and should see an opponent checking through a flop HU (or non-HU for that matter) in position, as extreme strength. Even aggro players would surely be hesitant to value bet or *shudder* bluff into this guy on turn, and then river? My reaction to the first example was: 'Pfff. WTF? That won't work'. But I can see that there would be better applications to the play.

Thanks again.

[James.]

mr cunningham,

the fish do it randomly, not as a tactical maneuver. for that reason I don’t think it would necessarily help us understand their rationale because they probably also call down third pair against other loose-passives that would only bet the nuts(not just call down loosely against aggro players).

I agree it *could* help us(in a way) avoid certain losing tactics(like bluffing) versus a loose-passive player, but they are not necessarily linked. I see where you’re coming from, though.

Allday in re: to numbnuts,

if you generally play the flop fast with monsters and occasionally check behind hopeless hands on the flop, this is less of a concern. I’m not arguing that this isn’t a drawback initially. I can certainly see it being a problem at times against some opponents. If you can’t exploit them via this line, adjust. That’s what poker is all about.

additionally, most players think “ooh monster” when you check the flop through simply because it happens so rarely. As it’s incorporated into general strategy it won’t be as odd to see it simply because you are doing it more often.

even so, if you gauge your opponent correctly he will be firing the turn a good amount of the time. we don’t need two streets of action for this to be viable.

I’ve mentioned getting two bets in on the big streets the times he a)is aggressively bluffing at the pot or b)has a hand of some showdown value and is “value” betting against us. For the most part I’ve basically ignored the reasonable amount of the time our aggro villain will have folded to our flop bet but stabs at the turn after our check. The times this is the case and he fires on the turn and then gives up, we still win an additional big bet from the turn bluff most of the time.

[Frond]

I think that in certain circimstancess, a line that varies from the obvious most predictable line can be good when used occasionally. Sometimes we need to play the very same hand in a different way to maximize our winings and not be too predictable. Although in LLHE straying from the ABC style(for me anyways)hasn't really been needed too much. Good to have another way of playing hands though.

[mrcunningham]

James,
thanks for your thoughts. i agree with your analysis of my analysis. nevertheless, your post serves as a good reminder to me when I play not to bluff calling stations.

[*TT*]

Nice post James, thanks for sharing our secrets [img]/images/graemlins/frown.gif[/img]

all - with the 77 hand check behind if the villain is in the BB, calls with any 2 cards and likely to bluff two streets. He might have 6 outs on you but in the long run it pays. Dont do this play however if the BB is a tricky lag that will c/r the turn with air because you looked weak on the flop.

keep in mind a check behind looks just as strong as it does weak. This works best when the table is observant.