Two Plus Two Newer Archives  

Go Back   Two Plus Two Newer Archives > General Poker Discussion > Poker Theory

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 11-26-2007, 01:19 AM
SeanC SeanC is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 108
Default Game theory and bluffing question

Hi,

When balancing your plays (betting, checking, calling, check-raising) between having nothing/having something, is an optimal balance generally where you're bluffing 50% of the time? It seems to make intuitive sense if you either were bluffing or had the nuts and were all-in by the river as that would simply be unexploitable, but its practicality is obviously limited. What's the practical method of balancing plays with hands that are just straight bluffs, hands that are valuable but can't really go all-in and hands that have enough equity to get it all-in?

That may be an overly ambitious question, but any advice you can give would be great. If you could just solve one simple example showing the method, I can just run with that.

Thanks.
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 11-26-2007, 01:45 AM
RustyBrooks RustyBrooks is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 1,380
Default Re: Game theory and bluffing question

This has been covered several times in the last few weeks on this forum, browse around for it.

The answer is not (in general 50%)

In general, you want the ratio between your bluffs and your legitimate bets to be about the same as the ratio between 1 bet and the pot size. This is so that your opponent can not profit - you are indifferent as to whether he folds or calls.

This is covered in "The Theory of Poker" by Sklanksy, and, I gather, The Mathematics of Poker.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 11-26-2007, 02:13 AM
SeanC SeanC is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 108
Default Re: Game theory and bluffing question

[ QUOTE ]
This has been covered several times in the last few weeks on this forum, browse around for it.

The answer is not (in general 50%)

In general, you want the ratio between your bluffs and your legitimate bets to be about the same as the ratio between 1 bet and the pot size. This is so that your opponent can not profit - you are indifferent as to whether he folds or calls.

This is covered in "The Theory of Poker" by Sklanksy, and, I gather, The Mathematics of Poker.

[/ QUOTE ]

Makes sense. That concept was covered in replies to another post of mine in similar context too, haha...I forgot. Arg, data overload these days.

Thanks for the reply.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 11-27-2007, 11:23 AM
rufus rufus is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 425
Default Re: Game theory and bluffing question

[ QUOTE ]

In general, you want the ratio between your bluffs and your legitimate bets to be about the same as the ratio between 1 bet and the pot size. This is so that your opponent can not profit - you are indifferent as to whether he folds or calls.

[/ QUOTE ]

Situations that are earlier in the game - that is with more potential betting, or cards to come - will probably have significantly different ratios since those will reduce the effective value of a good call down. (You'll see that most discussion of game-theory bluffing deals with the river or an analogue where there are no more betting rounds or cards to come.)
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 07:34 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, vBulletin Solutions Inc.