A bluff I don't understand.... stakes irrelevant/ Stud High.

[daveT]

So, in my short (read SHORT) Stud carreer, have seen this and similar situations come up.

Player A Shows xx5 [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] 2 [img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] 5 [img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] 2 [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] x

Player B Shows xx 4 [img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] 7 [img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] J [img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] 2 [img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] x

Clearly, Player B has a made flush. Player A kindly bets into Player B and player be looks frusterated, asks player A if he sees this?, flashes a spade and tosses them into the muck.

Of coarse, Player A feeling brilliant for bluffing off his opponent, shows that he only had two pair. Player B gets visibly upset. "Nice hand."

Now, I don't know, but at this point in my (very) short Stud High carreer, I am not able to see the point of this fold. I know that it is a good idea to rep more strength than you actually have, but I am really trying to figure out:

1- Is it good play to always use this "classic" bluff from a game theory stand point? Seeming that everyone should be aware of this, I can't see any reasonable opponent folding in these kind of spots.

2- Using game theory for calling frequency, is it ever a good idea to make this kind of fold, supposing a not too large pot?

Of coarse, I am also looking to know the psychological (non- theory) merit of this play.

[Mac]

daveT,

In response to 1, my experience has been that if Player B calls a bet on 6th street, he will not be folding to a single bet on 7th. I believe this to be a terrible spot for a bluff as you will only be called if you are beat, and I don't see Player B being pushed off his flush.

My standard line as Player A is check-call the river with two pair (I will make the fold if I have history with Player B and am almost certain he wouldn't bluff the river)

- Mac

[Brad1970]

First off...Dave, welcome to stud!!!

Secondly, I wouldn't be surprised if they were scared of each other considering their respective boards. Since that's not the case, I would check/call the river if I was player B. I don't know if I would call this a bluff or not...all he did was bet. Maybe he was just testing the waters to see if he got raised by the flush. I do that quite often...

Obviously, if I knew if the other 5's & the case deuce were dead, I'd raise.

FWIW, don't always assume that an opponent has a flush just because he's suited up on his board. Alot of times that is the case but if you're paying attention to the game/dead cards & not multi-tabling 4 different poker sites, you may be able to pick off such a bluff & not make a bad fold like player B did.

[PoorLawyer]

Against a player who can make this fold, player A should have just said good laydown instead of showing and next time it arises check-raise and get him to laydown his flush again and then show. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

[daveT]

Interesting responses, I guess my logic is sort of going on the right track.

In the book "Aces and Kings," a similar hand is described where Larry Flynt pushed his opponent that held a straigh. Larry Flint, of coarse, showed the bluff.

I am led to understand that Larry Flynt is supposed to be a world- class Stud player. Considering that this game was 2,000/4,000, did the stakes make much of a difference in the desicion making?

In Hold'em, if I know that a pessimistic player is capable of these kinds of laydowns, ie. "Big Laydowns," I would be pummelling bets unrelentlessly, knowing that I will get the best of him.

Considering that Stud features larger pots, I think that these laydowns are more incorrect, mathematically speaking.

Thanks.

BTW, I do not play OL very often, and certainly would not try to Multi-table stud, as I have a hard enough time with it in Hold'em. Though I did try it on play money, I had one Hi, H/L and two Omahas going, but I would not be so inane to think that I could do this for real.

Interesting to think that someone could really have four to eight tables of Stud going without some sort of mental disfunction, but that is coming from me, who can't remember his own phone number. [img]/images/graemlins/frown.gif[/img]

[southerndog]

What does game theory say about calling frequencies?

[Brad1970]

Dave,

I wasn't referring to you or anything, I was just making a general statement about multi-tabling because I see it all the time. I agree with you though, it is kinda crazy to do that.

[daveT]

[ QUOTE ]
Dave,

I wasn't referring to you or anything, I was just making a general statement about multi-tabling because I see it all the time. I agree with you though, it is kinda crazy to do that.

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh, no, I wasn't offended at all. Perhaps my writing came off a little wrong.

[daveT]

[ QUOTE ]

What does game theory say about calling frequencies?

[/ QUOTE ]

In a nut shell, game theory would suggest that if you were playing something like 5/10 and on the river, you had a semi-decent hand, and there was say $100 in the pot, you would have to be approxamately 90% sure that you hand is beaten for you laydown to be correct.

Game theory is math that you should use if your opponents are better players than you. If you are not ever more than 50% sure that you are beat on the river, then you would be incorrect to laydown any reasonable holding if there was $50 dollars in the pot.

As a general rule in hold'em, you should call if you are getting more than 10-1 on a call and you only have a bluff-catcher.

Calling frenquency in game theory is at it's best when you are attempthing to pick off bluffs, calling frequency is simply attempting to define the optimal stratagy against a player that is using perfect bluffing frequency.

[southerndog]

Davet, AFAIK, game theory refers to bluffing in an unprediictable fashion, there isn't anything about calling.