[NL2-NL10] Bluffing 3streets

    • Deomedes
      Deomedes
      Bronze
      Joined: 12.11.2011 Posts: 137
      Villain's stats are in only 188 hands VPIP 24 PFR 5 Cold Call 19 3bet 0 Fold to FCbet 69 WTSD 24.

      PartyGaming - $0.10 NL (6 max) - Holdem - 5 players
      Hand converted by PokerTracker 3

      SB: $10.74
      BB: $11.65
      Hero (UTG): $10.00
      CO: $9.94
      BTN: $20.74

      SB posts SB $0.05, BB posts BB $0.10

      Pre Flop: ($0.15) Hero has K:club: J:club:

      Hero raises to $0.40, CO calls $0.40, fold, fold, fold

      Flop: ($0.95, 2 players) 8:spade: Q:diamond: 8:diamond:
      Hero bets $0.68, CO calls $0.68

      Turn: ($2.31, 2 players) A:heart:
      Hero bets $1.50, CO calls $1.50

      River: ($5.31, 2 players) 6:spade:
      Hero bets $3.50, CO calls $3.50

      Hero shows K:club: J:club: (One Pair, Eights) (Pre 40%, Flop 15%, Turn 9%)
      CO shows Q:club: A:spade: (Two Pair, Aces and Queens) (Pre 60%, Flop 85%, Turn 91%)
      CO wins $11.70

      Someone might suggest that if he does not 3bet QQ (which is still not proved) and he folds alot to cbets there is no reason to go further than the cbet.

      I think the turn card though, was good enough to bet it but even better if you bet the river card in case no diamond comes.

      So I went with population tendencies which include to many suited connectors and broadway hands that do cold call PF and and do not fold espesially IP. So i bet the river too.

      Now I do not like my sizing on the river, i would make it around $2,70$ since i only fold the FD and a stubborn KQ or QJ sometimes.
  • 5 replies
    • w34z3l
      w34z3l
      Coach
      Coach
      Joined: 03.08.2009 Posts: 13,309
      Hey Deomedes,

      Vs this opponent is is fine to fire one and give up.

      In some spots firing 3 barrels is theoretically better than firing 2. The problem in this case is that the only hands you are folding out on the river are draws, and you beat draws with your K-high. 2 barreling might be ok if you felt villain was the sort to let go of Qx and draws.

      3 barrels does not make sense when you beat the entire range you fold out. If you had 4:d5 it might be a different story.

      Maybe it's true villain may sometimes fold Qx on the river, but in general it's not going to be a winning strategy attempting to make micro-stakes players fold pairs.
    • Deomedes
      Deomedes
      Bronze
      Joined: 12.11.2011 Posts: 137
      Thnx for the reply.

      I get your thinking but i always come up with that question and i want to address it to you since i think that probably that is my flaw in logic behind this play.

      Like in this example, on the river you say that i fold draws that i already win. But if i check don't i induce an opponetnt to bet with busted draws? I mean ok vs that certain villain who is that passive i would not mind ch/ f the river and that is way i made a big mistake here but vs other players ?

      I always come to feel that betting half pot is better. I mostly choose to bet unless i have seen opponent check back busted draws.

      And one more question that came to me during writing the first. You said that it is a bad stategy to try to bluff villains out of pairs at the micros.

      I do not want to oversimplify this but do you mean that vs unknown n semi-known opponents scare cards have little fold equity and that Double barreling is a losing strategy when there are possible draws ,along with likely pairs, that villain can have and we are oop with some equity which is not enough to ch/ call though.

      So it is better to ch / f on the turn unless we know that opponent is able to fold Qx in the spot by reads or he has high fold to Tcbet (with low Fto Fcbet prolly) narrow cold calling range PF that consist mostly pocket pairs or low WTSD in general. All the above with 500+ hand sample.
    • w34z3l
      w34z3l
      Coach
      Coach
      Joined: 03.08.2009 Posts: 13,309
      Originally posted by Deomedes
      Like in this example, on the river you say that i fold draws that i already win. But if i check don't i induce an opponetnt to bet with busted draws? I mean ok vs that certain villain who is that passive i would not mind ch/ f the river and that is way i made a big mistake here but vs other players ?
      The main reason I don't like your 3rd barrel on river is because I think it will be -EV. You are not getting enough folds. That's the short answer.

      Normally I would check/fold. I don't really feel you can profitably check/call or profitably bluff. The advantage to checking is that you sometimes see a free showdown with the best hand.

      But let's assume bluffing the river here will have a positive expectation. Why might we still choose not to bluff K:cJ. Let's think from a game theory perspective.

      Let's say you get to this river only ever with 2 hands, 4:d5 and K:cJ in equal proportions. You knew that in order to prevent yourself becoming exploitable you can only bluff river 50% of the time. Which hand do you choose to bluff with? Clearly you'd always bluff with the 4:d5 and check with the K:cJ. K:cJ has a shot at winning at showdown if action goes check/check while 4:d5 will always lose.

      When you find yourself in any situation where most of the hands your bluff will fold out are worse hands, check/calling will often have a higher expectation. I don't think you can check/call in this instance because there will be too many value hands compared to bluffs in villains range when he bets river, especially if he is passive.


      Originally posted by Deomedes
      I always come to feel that betting half pot is better. I mostly choose to bet unless i have seen opponent check back busted draws.
      Why half pot though? Even if villain has enough busted draws in his range to make a bluff profitable, you might aswell bet really small. You could bet $1.20 into $5 on this river and probably fold out all villains draws.



      Originally posted by Deomedes
      And one more question that came to me during writing the first. You said that it is a bad stategy to try to bluff villains out of pairs at the micros.

      I do not want to oversimplify this but do you mean that vs unknown n semi-known opponents scare cards have little fold equity and that Double barreling is a losing strategy when there are possible draws ,along with likely pairs, that villain can have and we are oop with some equity which is not enough to ch/ call though.
      It is super villain dependent.

      The problem I have in this instance is villain has a high-ish fold to cbet. That means the range that gets past the flop is narrower in general. You will have a harder time folding out that range on the turn because it is stronger. If villain had a very low Ftcbet and floated a ton of flops, double barreling as a bluff is going to show a much larger profit.

      The turn card is pretty decent for a barrel though. Part of the reason I don't mind a barrel is because these tighter players will get away from Qx, flush-draws + straight-draws vs a second barrel (especially on a paired board). Hopefully you can see why this could be a crucial factor in your river play. If villain has no draws or Qx by the river you are screwed and a bluff is suicidal.

      On the other hand, vs a different villain who might be a huge calling station on flop + turn, he is going to reach the river with a much wider range which could be susceptible to bluffs.




      So hopefully you can see that the main reason that I don't like your river bluff is that there is a possibility villain has no Qx or draws in his range. However even if villain were to reach river with a much wider range I wouldn't necessarily expect him to fold Qx after he's called twice so it doesn't make sense to bet so big. And even if your bluff was "+EV" it doesn't neccesarily make sense to bluff with K:cJ when there are better hands in your range you can use.
    • Deomedes
      Deomedes
      Bronze
      Joined: 12.11.2011 Posts: 137
      Wow thnx for the extensive reply. I promise i will re-read it and get the most out of it, though your reasoning was easily understood the way it was expressed.

      Thnx again.
    • w34z3l
      w34z3l
      Coach
      Coach
      Joined: 03.08.2009 Posts: 13,309
      No probs. You asked a good question so I tried to answer as best as possible.