Bluff Situations

    • ciRith
      ciRith
      Bronze
      Joined: 25.03.2005 Posts: 18,556
      I just found this in the 2+2 foeum and I read ToP atm too (Theorie of Poker).
      I think they said somehow the same thing.

      I ask myself now: How can I learn to find these situations? Is it the thing we already do or is it something special? Is it even really relevant?


      End with a dumb anecdote: I remember when I was a 2/4 - 3/6 grinder, I was a pretty consistent 1.2 BB winner, and I knew I had an edge over a typical Party table b/c, well, i wasn't a spewtard. But I remember the 1 skill that I saw other players exercise, but which i didn't yet have myself, was the skilled use of stone-cold bluff raises in appropriate situations...and the extent of my n00b thinking at the time was that I understood that SOME bluffing was necessary, but I was simply clueless about what cards were good candidates for doing so...and that's a big area where my game has really evolved. I see those situations now. I understand what boards are ripe for bluff-raises with air; and like I've written in my blog, most low-limit players don't realize just how infrequently those moves need to succeed to be profitable in the long term.
  • 3 replies
    • Stefan1000
      Stefan1000
      Bronze
      Joined: 24.01.2006 Posts: 1,649
      Have you read Hotte's article about Pure Bluffs?

      Here a small quote out of the article:



      Some basic Rules

      Without dealing with certain spots some ground rules, that describe general conditions that have to be granted if you want to bluff.

      a) The opponents: A bluff has the goal to win a pot forcing all opponents to fold. Only try to bluff opponents who know the “fold” button. As a result a bluff works best against rocks and TAGs. Never bluff callingstations and maniacs.
      b) The board should offer no draws at the best. We want our opponent to have a tough decision causing him to fold. The decision whether to fold or to call is in dependency of the pot odds, if he thinks that he is behind. If he holds a draw (quite usual for boards with lots of draws opportunities) he might have an easy decision – good for him but not for us. A board like K , 7 , 2 or 8 , 8 , 4 is more suitable for a bluff than a board like J , 9 , 8 . for instance.
      c) The number of opponents should be as small as possible. This sounds plausible because the chances of 3 opponents folding is a lot smaller compared to one opponent. A bluff versus 3 and more opponents is very rare. But I will give an example later on.


      According to the fact that ToP is an old book (not bad, just old, very good book btw) we could assume that he is talking about stuff like semi bluffs and continuation bets, but i am not sure.

      By the way i am almost never ever trying to do pure bluffs. Although i sometimes love to go for the check-raise against another tag on dry boards. But not frequently.

      We could add to the quote that you should only go for pure bluffs against opponents with a WTS of about 35.

      Also you should have a decent table image.

      In genral i think it is the best way not to rely much on pure bluffs.
    • Blinzler
      Blinzler
      Bronze
      Joined: 04.03.2005 Posts: 7,456
      i sometimes feel that i almost never raise the river as a bluff; might be a part where i could start.
      Other pure bluff spots i occasionally use are SB vs BB against a steal and to a lesser extent against a BU/CO steal.
      Turn raises I almost never do but dont think there are many good spots anyway. Turn donkbets occasionally are nice but not often and i mostly do them as semibluffs.

      Overall i just think that my river bluffing is not quite enough and might be a place for improvement, but on flop and turn i would at least like to have some outs for middle pair/gutshot as potential outs in case i get called.
    • ciRith
      ciRith
      Bronze
      Joined: 25.03.2005 Posts: 18,556
      thx you too. so I will reread some articles (long long time I read them the last time ^^ )

      @ToP: no it was pure bluffing and reading your oppoment. (semi-bluff and conti bet are separate chapters in ToP :) )