Turning your hand into a bluff and bluffing frequencies (theory)

[Dan Bitel]

OK, this thread is partly me teaching some of you newer guys something and then hopefully partly every1 else setting me straight on a frequency question or 3:

Part 1:

As I'm sure you'll realise, I and a quite a few other posters say quite often "stop turning your hand into a bluff" or you realise your hand is 72o".

Most the time this is when you are either leading into a PFR or when you are C/Ra PFR. It is almost always when you have a marginal hand and always when you are OOP.

As a quick example, imagine you call a PFR from the blinds with 77. Flop comes 963. The chances are, your are now ahead of the PFR range. HOWEVER, lets say you lead here, YOU ARE BLUFFING! The reason for this is that if you compare your hand here to 72o, you'll find you fare almost exacltly as well:

If he folds, 77 = 72o
If he raises, you fold and 77=72o
If he calls, you check/fold the turn and 77=72o (obv the only time this is not true is when you spike a 2 outer on the turn).

The exact same goes for when you C/R this flop. (I don't want to go into whats more +EV, leading or C/R, but they are both bluffs).

Now sure, you might say that you are "protecting" your hand which is likely best. Now this might be true, but it doesn't change the fact that you are turning your hand into 72o and therefore a bluff.

OK, so thats part1 over with. Part 2 kind of relates to that and leading into PFR in general.

My 1st question is that a lot of players like leading here, and it might well be b/c they have had good success with it. Now might this be b/c although you are bluffing, you SHOULD actually be bluffing some % of the time when you lead into the PFR in nearly all optimal stategies. After all, its no good just leading combo draws and sets into a PFR, otherwise, he should be just folding all the time when you lead. So my 1st question is, do you think players have had success with this line b/c it is actually a near optimal (or at least a very good) bluffing frequency?



My second question is a mathsy/theoretical question that for some reason I can't seem to get my head round. Lets take the same preflop action and the same flop, is the optimal bluffing frequency (in a complete 1 hand vacuum) either "100% or 0%" or is it "somewhere in between"? What I mean by this is, is it +EV or -EV to bluff with ATC here, and so we should do it either all the time or none of the time, OR, b/c of the fact that a certain % of the time villain has an overpair/hit the flop its better to just bluff here a certain % of the time? (I don't know if what I just wrote conveyed my question, feel free to ask for clarification if i wasn't clear).



My last question is how much do you think metagame and previous actions affect the optimal bluffing frequency in this spot?

[orange]

I think that against a decent opponent who doesnt get out of line much, leading these types of flops with ATC is fine every now and then. If they are capable of bluff raising or floating alot, then obviously adjust.

I think that metagame (your image) also depends on the sucess of your steals (leading into PFR w/ ATC). Having a good image will obviously increase your sucess rate.

[jjb108]

Interesting thoughts. I don't like leading into the PFR with a hand with showdown value...if I'm gonna bluff here I go big and spew a giant C/R [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

I think people like to lead into the PFR b/c the PFR misses alot and will fold so the "bluff" is succesful. If you miss the fact or don't understand that you're bluffing, have a bit of a hand makes the bluff easier to pull off.

If you chose to "bluff" on the frequency when you make or have some sort of hand. You're probably getting a good randomization of your bluffing frequency. So I'll put the bluff frequency maximum at somewhere at 20-30% and guess you'd want to stay at the lower range. Combined with the times you really have the best hand you're leading into them a little more than 1/3 the time. I'll let some math whiz str8ten me out here as well.

[kitaristi0]

It's very late here so I'll just say this and maybe follow up tomorrow after I sleep some.

Adding in hands like 77 on a 963r board to optimise/increase your bluffing frequencies to me doesn't make much sense because your hand obviously has value in itself and not only as a bluff. Instead of adding hands like 77 to your bluffs (on a 963r board) you should be adding hands like 72o or KQs or AJo. This much is probably obvious but I thought I'd just throw it out there to get the ball rolling.

[bet2win]

so the general strategy is to bet into a PFR with a set or a low pair here hoping he will pot commit himself when he raises thus allowing you to push with your set or fold with your PP?

is this because a C/R builds the pot too much and you only have a weak hand OOP

[cts]

If you bet 77 on a 963r board you beat

a float
overcards
a straight draw
a 6
a 3
55/44/22

have a couple outs to a fairly disguised monster hand

[Dan Bitel]

cts,

so whats your plan on the turn then? Would you c/c a 1/2 pot bet? what bout a 2/3 pot bet or a PSB?

[cbloom]

1. Obviously 77 is a bad hand to bluff on a 963r board, you'd rather have something with some sort of draw, like 2 overs, a gutshot, whateever.

2. There's competing ideas : bluffing based on your hand, or bluffing based on recent frequency. You can use hands well to randomize bluffing, but sometimes you go on a run of hands and perhaps you haven't led into the PFR at all on a table for a while. In that case you might bluff with a hand that you'd rather not, but it's still +EV.

3. Hands have value in various ways :

A) as bluffs
B) for showdown
C) if they improve

One of the real high level skills that I don't really have yet is to play a hand multiple ways as the situation changes. A hand like 77 can either be a mediocre hand to showdown, a hand to draw at 2 outs, or a bluff. Depending on the situation, the most +EV way to play it may be any of those, and that might change throughout the hand. People often say "don't turn your hand into a bluff", but sometimes that is the most +EV thing to do. For example in the 963r hand, if you're pretty sure your opponent has 88 or a weak 9, bluffing on later streets might be the most +EV option.

[cts]

[ QUOTE ]

so whats your plan on the turn then? Would you c/c a 1/2 pot bet? what bout a 2/3 pot bet or a PSB?

[/ QUOTE ]
I wasn't really thinking of it in the context of donking into a preflop raiser, I would rarely do this. If called on the flop my turn play really depends on how loosely my opponent peels flop bets and how tightly he is on fourth and fifth streets.

[Dan Bitel]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

so whats your plan on the turn then? Would you c/c a 1/2 pot bet? what bout a 2/3 pot bet or a PSB?

[/ QUOTE ]
I wasn't really thinking of it in the context of donking into a preflop raiser, I would rarely do this. If called on the flop my turn play really depends on how loosely my opponent peels flop bets and how tightly he is on fourth and fifth streets.

[/ QUOTE ]

OK,

the point I was trying to make is that I'd be c/f pretty much any turn that I didn't pick up a 7 or a draw. As a result, even though the flop bet might be "for value", c/c he turn is most likely way -EV, so we have to c/f the turn, which makes the flop bet a bluff