any advantage to being the first one to bluff at the pot?

[aflaba]

Is there any advantage to be the first one to bluff at a pot?


EDIT: in no limit

[aflaba]

By betting as a bluff compared to raising pot as a bluff:
-you risk pot compared to risking 2 x pot.
-so you need a higher success ratio.

But how does this translate to game theory?

I don't seem to be very good at game theory because I can't show that it is "worse" to raise as a bluff than to bet as a bluff.

Please help me out

[KajunKenny]

IF your the first one to bluff at a pot, usually you can take it down. Key is having some sort of read on your opponets. Bet size is key too. If you are going to bluff, leave yourself enough room to throw it away to a re-raise. I bluff alot in tourneys, I try to keep bluffing until I get called on it then I tighten up.

[ActionDJ]

Sometimes you are in a pot with predictable opponents, what a shock, and they will bet when checked to with nothing, but fold if you bet and they have nothing. The idea is that noone really cares about this pot, so first to take a stab will win. Unfortunately for the person OOP they don't know that yet, hence the value of position. Yes if you are the first to bet when both you and your opponent arent interested in the hand, you will probably take it down. How you figure out if noone is interested is by being in position, otherwise you are just guessing by betting which often means -EV.

[abcjnich]

this will work until your opponent catches on. then he will start to call your flop bets with anything and then take the pot away if you check to him on the turn. to counter this, you might have to start firing two bluffs, which risks more if your opponent actually has a hand. it's all about making constant adjustments to your opp's play.

[aflaba]

I phrased my question badly. So I'll rephrase!

If you BET pot you are risking "1" to win "1".
If you RAISE pot you are risking "2" to win "1".

Is a bet a better play than a raise all other things being equal? I tried showing that it was by using game theory (how many bluffs you can come away with) but I didn't succed. It would be nice if some of you guys could show me how it is done.

thanks

[aflaba]

[ QUOTE ]


If you BET pot you are risking "1" to win "1".
If you RAISE pot you are risking "2" to win "1".

Is a bet a better play than a raise all other things being equal? I tried showing that it was by using game theory (how many bluffs you can come away with) but I didn't succed. It would be nice if some of you guys could show me how it is done.

thanks

[/ QUOTE ]


bump

[Abbaddabba]

It's not risking 2 to win 1.

It's risking 2 to win a given pot size, plus 1.

The probability of bluff raises being successful has to be higher to make them worthwhile than bluff bets. But bluff raises (against thinking opponents) will be more successful with all else held constant because they will know that you are less likely to make a bluff raise than a bluff bet for those exact reasons. And also because he knows that you know his hand is likely stronger given the information that you bet than if he had checked.

[Wabbits]

IMO, I prefer to bet out with a hand or without a hand. If betting out is kept mixed up, it is harder for people to put you on hands, and eaiser to get paid off for that hand that is a lock. I live by "Feeler bets are nice."