My (Flawed) Theory of Bluffing

[john kane]

nick, ty for reply, do you mind expanding a bit on how you get those %s? i imagine it depends on your bluff:value ratio.

ipokeder, i used this style of play earlier this year over 100k+ hands running at around 6ptbb/100 mt ratio of 7 or so at 2-4nl, just since june i've been trying to become more aggressive (as i read on these forums a lot of bold plays) and since then it's gone really badly. The games have got tougher, as they always do, but I think just getting back to trying to win money off the weaker players rather than making 'sick' plays vs the 6+ tabling lag long term winning players is still a good strategy (not saying you can't do both, just i end out getting into battles vs the good lags and take my eye of the where the easier money is).

[DLizzle]

JK, it seems to me that you are giving up on playing back at stronger/aggressive players because it is just doesn't make sense to randomly make a move on them when there is no way to determine whether their hand is strong or not, and its just a guessing game where you're just trying to make your bluff optimal game theoretically or whatever and you don't think it's worth the effort as well as being really easy to misapply/screw up.

my answer to this is that it is not random. use your read on the players' moods, their perceived reads on you, game conditions, etc. for instance, say, using your example, 24/18 CO raises, you call in the blinds, flop is 4h8h9c. you check, he bets with x range, you c/r, he folds xx range, calls xy range, shoves xz range. Now, 5 mins later, same table, he raises CO again, you call again, flop is 4h8h9c again. Do you think x, xx, xy, xz as described above are the same as they were 5 minutes ago? I think not. that's one thing to think about.

Another thing, is that on the board you described, and many boards, its pretty hard to have just complete air. KQo is much different than QJo here as an example.

so I just gave two things you can use to randomize your bluffs. history/game conditions, and your hand strength relative to one that they might call with.

[DLizzle]

[ QUOTE ]

Point being the fact that betting for value is correct doesn't mean you can't bluff profitable with weak hand in the same spot.


[/ QUOTE ]

Also JK I am not quite sure that you understand this concept, do you?

[Nick Royale]

[ QUOTE ]
nick, ty for reply, do you mind expanding a bit on how you get those %s? i imagine it depends on your bluff:value ratio.

[/ QUOTE ]
They are approximations. If you bet a bit less than pot on the turn you need villain to fold about 40% to make an immediate profit with your bluff(if you bet 2/3 pot he needs to fold exactly 40% for an immediate profit, 0.4/0.6 = 2/3).

My point was that on many boards you'll vb your strong hands even if you know running the exact same line as a bluff would be profitable. This is because on some boards you just isn't likely to get paid off with your big hands, and those same boards are great for bluffing. Now you can try to find another line to get paid off more with your strong hands and other lines with your bluffs which maximize your fe, but in general I like playing my strong hands and bluffs the same way especially vs thinking players.

As to ratios, it's good to mix it up vs good players. But vs nits there's no need, you can throw in more bluffs than game theory suggests because they fold too much and vs calling stations there's rarely no need to bluff at all.

[john kane]

dlizzle, you've explained my problem spot on, and i do kinda agree with your answer about moods, reads, game conditions etc, but i feel too often i get called, and so my cards become far more important than they should be, so thus i should switch back to playing my old postflop game.

i will think about your x xx xy and xz explanation and make some deductions, but i assume you think they play tighter with their weaker hands becuase they know you are capable of making moves, which is obviously good as you are not being bluffed as often.

as for:

[ QUOTE ]
Point being the fact that betting for value is correct doesn't mean you can't bluff profitable with weak hand in the same spot.

[/ QUOTE ]

indeed i don't think i properly understand this. i assume given your opponent will fold frequently, then you can profitably bluff, and that given he will sometimes call you should also bet for value, as well as meaning that you have greater FE as he knows you bet with your strong hands.

my main concern, is that your only bluffing 'profitably' in terms of winning back what you incorrectly put in by making an unwise play on a previous street.

i got to go have lunch, ill def ponder a lot more on this.

[DLizzle]

[ QUOTE ]


i will think about your x xx xy and xz explanation and make some deductions, but i assume you think they play tighter with their weaker hands becuase they know you are capable of making moves, which is obviously good as you are not being bluffed as often.


[/ QUOTE ]

i was basically saying, don't bluff x% randomly, and instead just pick good spots where you think they would think you are unlikely to be bluffing, or spots where you just don't think they'd feel like getting into it with you.

[Phresh]

[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]

Even if we make the same play with a completely balanced frequency, there are many factors which alter this balance and skew the results in our favor, e.g., not randomly bluffing on these boards, but selectively choosing proper times to maximize fold equity. Also, Villain doesn't know our frequencies for Bluff Vs. Value and we can constantly alter it to throw him off.

Why can't/don't we apply the same strategy Vs. these tough Villain's?

[john kane]

my problem with:

If you bet a bit less than pot on the turn you need villain to fold about 40% to make an immediate profit with your bluff(if you bet 2/3 pot he needs to fold exactly 40% for an immediate profit, 0.4/0.6 = 2/3).

say pot is $196 on turn (as with first hand i posted). you bet $131 (2/3 of pot). i see now how it's 40% ($131/$327) but my problem is that of that $196 in the pot, your have contributed $96 . Thus you have invested $227 on a bluff to win $100, and so from the offset, if you plan to make this bluff, you have to know it will work at least 67% of the time ($227/$337).

Sometimes you will not get to the turn as he will fold, so without a doubt i would need to factor that in as well.

Meh, maybe given he will fold turn then it works out okay, i guess i just get frustrated when they call both streets.

[ QUOTE ]
i was basically saying, don't bluff x% randomly, and instead just pick good spots where you think they would think you are unlikely to be bluffing, or spots where you just don't think they'd feel like getting into it with you.


[/ QUOTE ]

i guess subconsciously i do this, in that some boards you just know are better to bluff at, but maybe something i should jot down on paper.


[ QUOTE ]
Even if we make the same play with a completely balanced frequency, there are many factors which alter this balance and skew the results in our favor, e.g., not randomly bluffing on these boards, but selectively choosing proper times to maximize fold equity. Also, Villain doesn't know our frequencies for Bluff Vs. Value and we can constantly alter it to throw him off.

Why can't/don't we apply the same strategy Vs. these tough Villain's?


[/ QUOTE ]

i think changing gears with bluff vs value is definitely important in terms of swinging back and forth whenever my image gets too tight or too laggy, something ill have to consciously consider. just sometimes when im on lag mode, and i keep missing my hands, i quite often want to get even laggier with the hope that soon ill get my big hands and then ill get paid massively, kind of representing tilt when im not on tilt.

[MDMA]

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.

[donkeykong2]

it s all about the frequencies. obviously if you never bluff in these spots the good players will sooner or later never call your value bets here. if they adjusted in that way you can profitably bluff. so there must be a bluffing frequency where this is balanced.


sorry if i repeat what a lot of people said before, i didnt read the whole thread.