Semi bluffing and slowplaying

[LA_Price]

For the point of this post assume an average online PLO 6-max game. I guess what is average is probably open to debate but assume stakes anywhere from 1/2 to 5/10 and that the game is not loose aggressive or loose passive and there are mix of a few LAG's, TAG, Tight Passives, and maybe a single loose passive.

So I've been thinking lately that my semi-bluffing has been getting slightly overboard. Now I think my problem is rare in that i think in general most people don't semi-bluff/bluff enough. Especially in 6-max the decision of whether to semi-bluff comes up all the time.

Now to balance my frequent old maybe too frequent semi-bluffing I would never slowplay. Even if I had something Like KKxx on a K K x board I would still bet it, because I wanted it to be included in my range of hands and hopefully allow me to get away with more bluffs.

The weakness of this strategy was everytime I checked my opponent could assume I had nothing..or at at least that I was not going to call, raise or check raise them often enough to make betting wrong. I think my opponents stole alot on the turn and I was pretty defenseless when it came to reraising them because I could rarely represent the nuts. Now this thought hasn't really corresponded with any big downswing, but I think i could be doing better by a 1-2 BB/100.

So my experiment is that I semi bluff less and occasionally play hands like this
PokerStars Pot-Limit Omaha High, $6 BB (5 handed) Hand History Converter Tool from FlopTurnRiver.com (Format: 2+2 Forums)

Hero ($1226.10)
Button ($192)
SB ($258.20)
BB ($846.30)
UTG ($1668.60)

Preflop: Hero is MP with A[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img], J[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img], 2[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img], K[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img].
UTG calls $6, <font color="#CC3333">Hero raises to $24</font>, <font color="#666666">1 fold</font>, SB calls $21, BB calls $18, UTG calls $18.

Flop: ($96) 8[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img], 6[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img], 2[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] <font color="#0000FF">(4 players)</font>
SB checks, BB checks, UTG checks, Hero checks.

But then alternatively play some hands like this

PokerStars Pot-Limit Omaha High, $4 BB (5 handed) Hand History Converter Tool from FlopTurnRiver.com (Format: 2+2 Forums)

UTG ($223.60)
MP ($273.05)
Hero ($318.20)
SB ($540.20)
BB ($240)

Preflop: Hero is Button with J[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img], 7[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img], 9[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img], T[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img].
UTG calls $4, <font color="#666666">1 fold</font>, <font color="#CC3333">Hero raises to $16</font>, <font color="#666666">1 fold</font>, BB calls $12, UTG calls $12.

Flop: ($50) 8[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img], T[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img], 6[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] <font color="#0000FF">(3 players)</font>
BB checks, UTG checks, Hero checks.

So I guess the point of the post is do you think the better strategy is to semi-bluff more and never slowplay or to sometimes slowplay but then semi-bluff less? Also do you think the two should be linked or that people do not even notice?

[piiop]

I think Hand 1 is fine to check there some of the time.

I think Hand 2 is really bad. This kind of flop and your hand is where you make a ton because your opponents will play back at your with crushed hands or at least put a lot of money in the pot by checkcalling.

As far as semibluffing/slowplaying goes, it's difficult to discuss because so many situational factors directly affect that decision. However, I won't slowplay very often and semi-bluff sometimes. If that helps.

[Ralph Wiggum]

PL$10 player chiming in. I don't see anything wrong w/ Hand 1. If it's standard to bet BP w/ NFD, then I need to incorporate that.

However to balance it, wouldn't it be better to slowplay in situations where your opponents could catch something that would improve to a hand that you still beat? There are so many bad cards that can come on the turn, where if you now put in money, your equity isn't that great.

[Troll_Inc]

In general terms, when you have position on the flop when you raised preflop...

I think that a winning strategy should revolve around betting your made hands (in position) almost all the time (z%).

Then you want to bluff x% of time the time when you have absolutely no chance to win if the hand is checked all the way down (or you are called all the way down).

And then you want to semibluff y% of the time.

So z&gt;y&gt;x.

I think it is really going to depend on the game, but I could imagine the correct numbers might look like:

z= 80-95%
y= 35-50%
x= 10-25%

p.s. If you haven't done so, definitely read this month's 2+2 PLO article.

[Silent A]

Those values of x, y, and z should be functions of board texture and the relative proability that you have a made hand, a draw, or nothing (respectively) for that particular texture.

And Ralph,

Yes, betting a naked flush draw is standard (esp. in position) at just about any stakes level.

And in hand 2, how many cards could come on the turn that could hurt Hero? I only see 9: 3 Jacks, 3 eights and 3 sixes. That said, this is a relatively rare example of a flopped straight that could conceivably be slowplayed when not heads-up (although barely).

[iggymcfly]

You don't ever want to check the flop last to act with a vulnerable nut hand like the one in Hand 2. Ever! You want to extract as much value as possible and you want to protect your hand as well as possible.

The fact is that most typical online games are best exploited by stealing more hands on the flop than you would in a game-theory perfect strategy because most players are afraid to play back without a solid hand. Thus, your #1 concern should be balancing all of your stone cold bluffs with nut hands. If you're checking the absolute nuts here, then your opponents will be able to come over the top of your bets like crazy.

Now yes, you do need to check some hands behind that are worth calling, but the trick is to do it with hands that have enough value to call a bet, but not enough to call a check/raise. For example, you'd want to check something like middle set behind on that last flop almost all of the time, because it's a got a lot of value if it sees the turn, but almost no value if you get check/raised. Then, against a frequent bluffer, you can call it down to showdown if he fires the turn and river. In order to balance your stone cold bluffs (and just to get value), you really need to bet the flop with the nuts there though.

Hand 1's a much better candidate to check behind, but with how low the flop is, I'd still be potting this 95% of the time or more. You're going to be running into sets very infrequently here, and you're getting it in good against almost everything else on this flop.

[LA_Price]

In a vacuum hand 2 would be bad to do but I think some of the responses have missed the point of the post which was more thinking about an overall game strategy. Many of you are commmenting on the specifics of the certain hand. What you do on any given hand is rather meaningless compared to your overall game plan.

[LA_Price]

Iggy,

both of the hands would usually both be bet on the flop, but what I'm talking about is checking every once and a while and at random to keep aggressive opponents off balance. Their usual assumtions like "he checked therefore he must not have hit anything" or "He doesn't have the nut flush draw because he would have always bet there" are not so automatic. There are many regular opponents I play against who will steal very liberally after I check and I think that by very occasionally playing hands like the ones described I will increase my overall expectation because my play will be more unpredictable. Has anyone else ever tried or experimented with such game plans and seen long term results to indicate that it wasn't at all a good idea?

[LA_Price]

Troll_Inc,

I would think of x as pure bluffs(hands that can't win a showdown). Y as how often I bet with my draws and z how often i bet my nut hands.

I think my estimates of what x(bluffs), y(semi-bluffs), and z(nut made hands) would be towards your uppper end. If i was to think of what mine have been in the past I would have to say they have been

z=99.9%
y=60%
x=20%

and my new experiment would be something like

z=95%
y=50%
z=20%

[TheRempel]

While I think it can be important against decent observant players to check behind with very strong hands occasionally, in practice most opponents don't pay enough attention to make it worthwhile.