Never stone cold bluff

[PokerEveryDay]

If you never stone cold bluffed (flop play), what is the best that poker player can expect to be?

[Dromar]

[ QUOTE ]
If you never stone cold bluffed (flop play), what is the best that poker player can expect to be?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'd say pretty good. I don't think it's a great idea to have a plan to bluff all the way through a hand. When you assess the situation as a good time to bluff, then you bluff. Don't bluff all the way because you had made the decision at the beginning of the hand though. I think this type of play comprises little to no part of a good player's capability. I suppose, it's something you should be able to do, but never plan to do.


P.S. Try to include more content when you start threads. It's difficult to give a full answer with so little to go with. For example, mention that you're talking specifically about NL (probably NLHE). I'm sure you realize a 3-barrel bluff is almost always ill-advised in limit poker.

[PantsOnFire]

How do you define "stone cold bluff"? Are you talking NL Holdem? Why just the flop?

[PokerEveryDay]

OK, NLHE on any street. Continuation bet is OK.

Thanks

[PokerEveryDay]

[ QUOTE ]
How do you define "stone cold bluff"? Are you talking NL Holdem? Why just the flop?

[/ QUOTE ]

You catch complete air on the flop, turn and river.

Yes, NLHE.

After the flop, on any street.

[ev_slave]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If you never stone cold bluffed (flop play), what is the best that poker player can expect to be?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'd say pretty good. I don't think it's a great idea to have a plan to bluff all the way through a hand. When you assess the situation as a good time to bluff, then you bluff.

[/ QUOTE ]

This seems about right, but many players bluff when it is not profitable because they don't stop to think whether or not their story is reasonable. For example, many beginners will bluff the turn or river trying to tell the other player they have aces. But Preflop they limped, and then they checked behind on the flop. A good player may realize that if your the sort of player that raises with AA PF, then your story is nothing more than a bluff, and you'll lose.

Also, many beginners are proud of themselves for bluffing and taking down a pot, when in reality they had the winning hand. "Bluffing" with AK on a 972 flop probably just a value bet.

To relate this to the post, I think that a player could be a winning player never making a stone-cold bluff, but that requires pretty good play. If the player is of the quality to win without it, then he/she is of the quality that can pick up on good bluffing ops, and so is doing his(her)self a disservice by never bluffing.

[Poker Clif]

[ QUOTE ]
If you never stone cold bluffed (flop play), what is the best that poker player can expect to be?

[/ QUOTE ]

That question makes me nervous. Yes, there is a place for bluffing for bluffing's sake, if for no reason that a game theory move to mix up your game.

But game theory talks about randomizing bluffs, so that you might not even know when you're going to do it. Your question could lead to the conclusion that "I need to do some bluffing now", to something ill-considered that will cost you money with bad cards.

[PokerEveryDay]

Just to be clear on this subject, I'm not saying don't semi-bluff.

[PantsOnFire]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
How do you define "stone cold bluff"? Are you talking NL Holdem? Why just the flop?

[/ QUOTE ]

You catch complete air on the flop, turn and river.

Yes, NLHE.

After the flop, on any street.

[/ QUOTE ]
Okay. I classify a stone cold bluff as a hand where you have no pair, no draw, no overcards, don't have the initiative, have a very good table image and have an opponent has a real hand that he is capable of laying down. The doubt should slowly build in your opponent and then he faces the hammer and has a tough decision.

This is extremely difficult to do. You most likely cannot do it on the flop since you need to build a very good story about your hand. The best stories are told on the flop and turn play, so the river is the usual place to make this outrageous play.

In answer to your question, I would say most players are incapable of such a play and would lose more chips trying it than actually profiting from it.

Most players should stick to basic bluffing and get that down really well. This includes cbetting, stealing from the button, scooping orphaned pots, bluff checkraise, semi-bluffing, firing multiple barrels and attacking weakness in general. None of these are stone cold bluffs but most players should be able to do those types of bluffs fairly well.

[pzhon]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If you never stone cold bluffed (flop play), what is the best that poker player can expect to be?

[/ QUOTE ]

That question makes me nervous. Yes, there is a place for bluffing for bluffing's sake, if for no reason that a game theory move to mix up your game.

[/ QUOTE ]
Is that more important than money?

Mixing up your game is overrated. Many people do this when it hurts them. Mix up your game if doing this means you win more money. If your goal is to make money, don't do it for the sake of mixing up your game.

My primary goal at the poker table is to make money. That sometimes means bluffing, particularly against opponents who seem bluffable, and who seem to give me too much credit.

[ QUOTE ]

But game theory talks about randomizing bluffs, so that you might not even know when you're going to do it.

[/ QUOTE ]
This is a very misleading way of putting it. When there is hidden information, the game theoretic solutions usually involve bluffing based on the hidden information you have. For example, you generally should bluff on the river with hands with the least showdown value, not all of the hands that would be bluffing after you bet. If there is a chance that your opponent will call with a draw, then give up when it misses, then you might prefer bluffing on the turn with hands that are better than the draws.

If your opponent deviates from optimal play by folding too often, it may be right to bluff 100% of the time with many hands. If your opponent deviates from optimal play by calling too much, it may be right to bluff 0% of the time.