An Alternative Play When Inducing Bluffs/Bets

[James.]

[ QUOTE ]
If your opponent is aggressive he will raise you with any piece of the flop so you're only really getting value when he has total air. All you're doing is giving up value.

[/ QUOTE ]

keep in mind, most of the time our villain will have missed the flop. it stands to reason he will have air pretty often(i.e. a majority of the time).

[chesspain]

[ QUOTE ]
so you're worried about a 6outer in a 4sb pot?

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
checking 77 behind on the flop means we can likely call down regardless of what the turn and river bring.

[/ QUOTE ]

You realize that the latter contradicts the former.

[numbnuts007]

I think I should bring up the fact that a check on the flop after a pf raise is frequently evidence of a monster holding. I think that many players online, even the bad ones, are aware of this. This runs the risk of doing the exact opposite of what we had intended. Instead of getting paid off it can sometimes convince an opponent to c/f their bottom/mid pair on the turn. I like where you're going with this, and definetly see value in some situations. I'm going to chew on this one for a little.

[James.]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
so you're worried about a 6outer in a 4sb pot?

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
checking 77 behind on the flop means we can likely call down regardless of what the turn and river bring.

[/ QUOTE ]

You realize that the latter contradicts the former.

[/ QUOTE ]

um, no it doesn't.

the pot is 4sb, we don't have much to protect. seems pretty simple.

also seems simple to understand that if we're checking behind 77 in that spot, as i alluded to in my OP, we must have determined that we have an opponent with a very high postflop aggression level to warrant that play. the smaller our pair(or the weaker our hand in general) the more aggro villain needs to be. since we have ascertained that he is so aggressive, he will fire with a very wide range on the turn and river that includes a significant portion of hands worse than our 77. this makes calling down more profitable than simply betting the flop. why? because a bunch of the time we bet the flop, he simply folds worse/hopeless hands. so the situation can be manipulated as such that a significant amount of the value in our hand can come from villain's bluffing range.

still think it's a contradiction? if so, please explain as i'm not very smart. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

[mrcunningham]

James,
I don't play in the aggressive online environment, rather I play in the loose passive live milieu, and what you have posted here is very interesting to me if you look at it from the live perspective. Think about switching the roles in the case of a live table. The aggressive player is actually the 2+2er who hasn't quite adjusted to the passive opponents, and the passive opponents end up playing a lot like what you are suggesting here.

I have seen, and experienced personally, many times where an aggressive (possibly even TAG) player keeps betting while the 'fishy' loose passive player keeps calling. They go to showdown and the fish shows third pair and the more aggressive "better" playing player mucks.

Would you agree that the tactic that you've posted here that is potentially effective in an online game can be 'reversed' to help us understand what we might wish to avoid against a passive live game, or am I just confused?

[ProfessorBen]

Thanks. Hope I see this more online.

[Allday Everyday]

Hey, I think this is great posting James. Good work. Love to read constructive poker thought. Thanks for it.

I'm going to try to get my mind around the idea and experiment a little. See how it goes.

But what about what numbnuts007 just said? IMO the vast majority of players do and should see an opponent checking through a flop HU (or non-HU for that matter) in position, as extreme strength. Even aggro players would surely be hesitant to value bet or *shudder* bluff into this guy on turn, and then river? My reaction to the first example was: 'Pfff. WTF? That won't work'. But I can see that there would be better applications to the play.

Thanks again.

[James.]

mr cunningham,

the fish do it randomly, not as a tactical maneuver. for that reason I don’t think it would necessarily help us understand their rationale because they probably also call down third pair against other loose-passives that would only bet the nuts(not just call down loosely against aggro players).

I agree it *could* help us(in a way) avoid certain losing tactics(like bluffing) versus a loose-passive player, but they are not necessarily linked. I see where you’re coming from, though.

Allday in re: to numbnuts,

if you generally play the flop fast with monsters and occasionally check behind hopeless hands on the flop, this is less of a concern. I’m not arguing that this isn’t a drawback initially. I can certainly see it being a problem at times against some opponents. If you can’t exploit them via this line, adjust. That’s what poker is all about.

additionally, most players think “ooh monster” when you check the flop through simply because it happens so rarely. As it’s incorporated into general strategy it won’t be as odd to see it simply because you are doing it more often.

even so, if you gauge your opponent correctly he will be firing the turn a good amount of the time. we don’t need two streets of action for this to be viable.

I’ve mentioned getting two bets in on the big streets the times he a)is aggressively bluffing at the pot or b)has a hand of some showdown value and is “value” betting against us. For the most part I’ve basically ignored the reasonable amount of the time our aggro villain will have folded to our flop bet but stabs at the turn after our check. The times this is the case and he fires on the turn and then gives up, we still win an additional big bet from the turn bluff most of the time.

[Frond]

I think that in certain circimstancess, a line that varies from the obvious most predictable line can be good when used occasionally. Sometimes we need to play the very same hand in a different way to maximize our winings and not be too predictable. Although in LLHE straying from the ABC style(for me anyways)hasn't really been needed too much. Good to have another way of playing hands though.

[mrcunningham]

James,
thanks for your thoughts. i agree with your analysis of my analysis. nevertheless, your post serves as a good reminder to me when I play not to bluff calling stations.