Bluffing the Flush

[Bone_Daddy]

I’ve stumbled across a fairly lucrative “maneuver” while playing at the cash tables. Since I’ve been almost exclusively devout to the cash tables, I’m not sure how successful this play is in tournaments.

I’ve been bluffing the flush hard, and picking up very sizable pots on the river.

I observed that most SOLID cash game players are over aggressive in protecting over cards to a 4 flush board after the flop, that is, after all, sound technical poker; torque the odds with over pot bets so it is un-profitable to call over the long haul.

But what happens if your not drawing to a flush, or better yet, your draw is an OESD. The over bet by your opponent defines his hand and his level of sophistication. This is based on the assumption that if he is drawing, he is not raising the pot to that degree, which is a fair assumption.

So now I have more “implied” outs. If my OESD provides 8 outs, I assume 7 more on my fake flush draw, so calling an over bet, which doesn’t make sense with a simple flush draw (36%), now provides me with a 60% chance to hit my hand (real or perceived, don't care). Now an over pot bet that reduces the payout to less than 2 to 1, is still profitable, plus some.

This is why, my opponent is going to toss in another over pot bet on the turn if the flush doesn’t hit, another smooth call raises the pot and maybe I just hit my straight.

When the flush hits on the river, he now has no choice but to check or make a small blocker bet, and I will of course bet the pot (i don't even have to push all in, he can't call), he/she has no choice but to fold, typically paying me about 1/4 to 40% of his stack.

But it gets even better, when you hit your well concealed hand, be it a straight, 2 pair or a set, he is going to give you the rest of his stack by either pushing all-in to teach you that final lesson that only donkeys chase a draw, or will insta-call your all-in bet convinced that you are bluffing a missed flush draw.

I’ve found that this has worked about 80% of the time, it falls apart quick with a paired board or a flush hit on the turn, since one of his over cards maybe now be drawing on the river plus his high pair. So this play can dent your stack if you miss all together or your opponent pushes all in on the turn, forcing you to fold.

This does not work against morons that are calling you down to the river with king queen off suit.

Give it a try; let me know how it works.

[Barfunkel]

Flopping an OESD and representing it as a flush draw is something I do quite frequently. When I do make the straight I usually get a free ride to valuetown and bluffing when I hit my "fold equity out", as I call it, also works often BUT I have no idea if this is actually profitable in the long run.

Is there a way to filter PT data so that I could actually see if putting money in the pot with an OESD when there's a FD on board is profitable?

[RustyBrooks]

So, Barfunkel, are you saying that when you make your straight, you bet for value, but when the flush card appears on the river, you bluff? Do you see the contradiction there?

Anyway, this is a well known concept. I think the first place I read it was probably in the holdem part of Super/System I.

Notable problems with this are:
* villains who will pay you off with hands that are losing to a flush
* villains who have a flush draw themselves (whoopsie daisy)
* If they won't pay off your (apparent) flush, they won't pay off the straight either. If you size the straight bet to get called you'll be giving away information.
* Everyone and their mother knows that people sometimes use scare cards to bluff. Besides, don't you think people will wonder why you're betting the pot with a hand that has theirs crushed? Wouldn't you be making a milking bet here, or check-raising or something?

[drzen]

If I see you do it three times in a row to "solid players", I figure you are FOS, and never fold an overpair to you on a flush board. Because you think only donkeys will call you, I'm betting you'll try it on me again, and I will win way more from you than you won from them. If I haven't seen you do it before, I might look you up anyway, because if you are not otherwise loose, I am wondering why you called without the odds on the turn, and I probably figure you thought you had more outs because you would bluff the flush. If I'm wrong, I have learned you're an idiot, and don't mind so much that I paid a PSB to find that out because I'll gain it back from you on wettish boards.

I don't understand why I push to teach donkeys lessons. The last thing I want to do is teach them anything at all.

[LarryLaughs]

I am thinking this is a winning play against low'ish limit nits. Against observant players you will bust out if you try it too often. I would use it like any bluff, sparingly.

[Bone_Daddy]

Rusty, the ideal situation involves cold calling pot or over pot bets on the flop and turn and check raising the river if you fill your staight or set and no flush comes, or leading out on the river if the flush comes. some variance involved, but I found it profitable, but like Barfunkel said, don't know how to track this in PT to confirm it pays in the long run. It does make large pots and going to war more times than not with weak holdings. Good points not to overuse, but the situation does not come up often enough to be too obvious.

[PantsOnFire]

[ QUOTE ]
I observed that most SOLID cash game players ...

[/ QUOTE ]
You have some contradictions in your post. These solid players will figure out what you are doing pretty quickly. And also, these players will not be paying you off very much when you do hit. You need donkeys to pay you off when you hit but these same donkeys will not go away when you miss.

Overall, this play sounds expensive. And the more expensive a play is if you get it wrong, the more you need to not get it wrong.

I think this play is better against guys who are making 1/2 to 2/3 pot value bets. These are the kinda guys that see monsters in the closet. They are just waiting for a raise so they can get out with a minimum loss.

[NotStudying]

Sorry, can someone tell me the what bluffing an OESD looks like compared to bluffing the flush? I'm assuming the board represents both a potential straight and a potential flush. Why don't they look the same.

Sincerely,

Donkay.

[mistere45]

Let me first say that the player you are describing this manuever working on is not a sophisticated player. Any player that makes it obvious what he is holding based on his bet is a poor player. The bluff you are referring to isnt a new one. The twist here is the OESD, which I find can be effective on a suited board, if you are fairly sure your opponent isnt betting the flush draw. A sophisticated player would not only be betting hands he wanted to protect this way, but also the come as well. So assuming you have 8 outs or bluffing the flush can be very costly against a truly sophisticated player.

[RustyBrooks]

[ QUOTE ]
Sorry, can someone tell me the what bluffing an OESD looks like compared to bluffing the flush? I'm assuming the board represents both a potential straight and a potential flush. Why don't they look the same.


[/ QUOTE ]

The idea is that you have a straight draw, and there is a flush draw possible (2 suited cards on the board). When the 3rd suited card appears, you raise and make it appear that you were drawing the flush all along (or, the straight + the flush or some other combo draw). So you have all your "real" outs for the straight and also some "scare" outs for the flush, which you don't have.

When it works, you're brilliant, when it doesn't you just lost most of your stack.