[NL2-NL10] Discussion on Bluff Induction(NL100 hand sample)

    • DaPhunk
      DaPhunk
      Bronze
      Joined: 01.03.2008 Posts: 2,805
      Firstly, I apologise for the not particularly appropriate HH, but I think Its useful to get across the general sort of spot I would like to chat about. Overcards to your pair!

      In this sample I think its a clear Cbet/Fold since we opened in early and villain generally calls 12 to 15% range in raised pots on CO (HM) I think he plays quite weak on this board only continuing with an A and he is just to passive to get a bluff out of.

      However, If we raised at a later position or were up against a loosish-aggressive maniac I'm wondering If we could get more value out of Check/Calling/shoving on a flop like this even if its A-High. I'd be interested to know some peoples views on how this situation would have to be different or how different Villain would have to be to make a Check instead of a standard cbet purely for bluff induce!

      in case you are interested here are this particular villains stats;



      Party Poker $100 No Limit Hold'em - 9 players - View hand 225500
      The Official DeucesCracked.com Hand History Converter

      CO: $100.00
      BTN: $89.10
      SB: $20.35
      BB: $20.00
      Hero (UTG): $17.38
      UTG+1: $68.21
      UTG+2: $36.63
      MP1: $4.00
      MP2: $69.60

      Pre Flop: ($1.50) Hero is UTG with Q :spade: Q :heart:
      Hero raises to $3.50, 5 folds, BTN calls $3.50, 2 folds

      Flop: ($8.50) J :spade: A :diamond: 3 :heart: (2 players)
      Hero bets $5, BTN calls $5

      Turn: ($18.50) 7 :heart: (2 players)
      Hero checks, BTN bets $17.58, Hero folds


      So What do you guys think? Any interesting points on bluff induction?

      (I also considered that a particularly loose villain could try and float us here but I'm not sure how many Villains out there would be willing to risk it on a play like that. Thats another story though :f_biggrin: )
  • 12 replies
    • Tim64
      Tim64
      Black
      Joined: 02.11.2008 Posts: 7,401
      My first thought is that i'm not sure how often you induce a bluff by raising pf and then checking an A-high flop.

      If I were a bss player calling an sss raise I would expect them to have an Ace much of the time. I would also expect them to c-bet much of the time (at least 60%). So, if sss player raises, hits an A-high board and doesn't c-bet bet, I will frankly be very suspicious and inclined to check behind. This is because I know that even if the sss player doesn't have an Ace he ought to consider the A-high board as ripe for a c-bet.

      On that basis, if the BSS player does bet after a missed c-bet I think he will actually have paired the relevant overcard enough of the time to make check-shoving with the underpair a high variance move.
    • RahXephon1
      RahXephon1
      Bronze
      Joined: 14.04.2009 Posts: 972
      Hmm, since the guy folds to contibet in 54%, I would expect that he would fold to an A high board without holding an Ace. Maybe he's also not folding some smaller pocket pairs, but even if he doesn't, they should be a small part of his range.
    • Gonzo394
      Gonzo394
      Bronze
      Joined: 29.12.2007 Posts: 2,181
      at first sight i'd say this is a perfect example of an opponent, against whom you shold NOT play a bluff-induce line.

      he seems to have no clue about raising preflop, not much clue about positional play, no clue about check-raising. So generally speaking: He doesn't have a clue. (unlike someone who floats on purpose.) Additionally he rarely bets against missed cbets and is generally quite passive. Bluff-induction here is pointless.
    • DaPhunk
      DaPhunk
      Bronze
      Joined: 01.03.2008 Posts: 2,805
      Originally posted by Tim64
      My first thought is that i'm not sure how often you induce a bluff by raising pf and then checking an A-high flop.
      The point is that, I should technically be in a later position and Villain should be very LAG. A check can easily look like weakness in this spot and a foolish Aggressive guy can try take it down, if not on turn, on river.

      @ You Other two. You completely misunderstand me for crying outloud. I played the sample hand fine. I'm trying to talk about what sort of guy We might actually be able to bluff induce against and what Position we could have raised out of for the play to make more sense. I posted the villain stats as an example of how easy the standard play was in this spot.

      *p.s.* I'm drunk now so don't take offense If my wording was incorrect or nasty in any way.
    • RahXephon1
      RahXephon1
      Bronze
      Joined: 14.04.2009 Posts: 972
      I'm sorry i haven't read you question with enough attention.
      :f_o:
    • Gonzo394
      Gonzo394
      Bronze
      Joined: 29.12.2007 Posts: 2,181
      i believe i have.

      read my arguments why this is a bad spot for bluff-induce and you should get the feeling what i would consider a good spot, shouldn't you?

      oh, well, if not: Take the same hand, board and position as SB vs BB.
      Then against some villains i would consider check-pushing the turn.

      If it was a MP vs LP- situation and you had AA or AK instead of QQ and had a opponent who tends to react aggressive if someone shows weakness, i think it would also be a good spot for check-pushing here.
    • DaPhunk
      DaPhunk
      Bronze
      Joined: 01.03.2008 Posts: 2,805
      If you SB vs BB or Late vs BU villain and have AA or AK you want to get max value and a Check/Push looks pretty strong. This might scare away some weaker aces that you would otherwise have been able to stack. Granted you may be able to get some value out of a couple of weaker hands that would try and bet you out of the pot. I think I'd just stick to cbetting as normal in that spot (unless I need to balance for some reason)

      Now, If you have something like QQ or JJ on an A high board, you might think of checking Flop+turn and calling a riverbet against a relatively but not uber aggressive player. You are getting about the right amount of value out of the hand and are likely coming up against hands you beat more often as well. (I like this line in some spots by the way)

      Downside of that is that if you decide to only call a bet on the river and fold on the turn you may get bluffed out of the pot early and if you DO call the turnbet you check river again which just invites him to try and bluff you out of pot on river by getting the rest of your stack in again.

      Now when this flop came I was thinking I got no worse hands to call and no better hands to fold bar KK maybe. Now, If I try the line of checking down and Check/Calling river even this guy may try and bluff us out on the river as we really do look that weak! I think he might actually be scared to bluff before the river in case we were trying to Check/Raise turn or something.

      Ok, there is quite a lot there. If you can be bothered to read it all, well done :)
    • Gonzo394
      Gonzo394
      Bronze
      Joined: 29.12.2007 Posts: 2,181
      Originally posted by DaPhunk
      If you SB vs BB or Late vs BU villain and have AA or AK you want to get max value and a Check/Push looks pretty strong. This might scare away some weaker aces that you would otherwise have been able to stack. Granted you may be able to get some value out of a couple of weaker hands that would try and bet you out of the pot. I think I'd just stick to cbetting as normal in that spot (unless I need to balance for some reason)
      On the turn you have less than potsize left most of the time, so I don't think you miss value if you c/p, since he's comitted anyway by placing a bet (at least if he had a hand that he had called a SB with; and if he's not putting us all-in anyway)
      I do this mainly for balancing, since otherwise on J A 3 7 a check on the turn ALWAYS means: giving up. Thus floating me here would be too profitable.

      Originally posted by DaPhunk
      Now, If you have something like QQ or JJ on an A high board, you might think of checking Flop+turn and calling a riverbet against a relatively but not uber aggressive player. You are getting about the right amount of value out of the hand and are likely coming up against hands you beat more often as well. (I like this line in some spots by the way)
      So you fold if he bets on the turn, but call if he bets on the river? Sounds unwise to me. Although I must admit I see myself doing this sometimes. Do you have an example hand where you did this?

      Originally posted by DaPhunk
      Downside of that is that if you decide to only call a bet on the river and fold on the turn you may get bluffed out of the pot early and if you DO call the turnbet you check river again which just invites him to try and bluff you out of pot on river by getting the rest of your stack in again.
      Most often if you DO call a turnbet you are comitted anyway. Which is a bad thing especially oop because you give him the chance to use your comittement to his advantage. I think betting the flop and check/calling the turn is just not a option as a shortstack.

      Originally posted by DaPhunk
      Now when this flop came I was thinking I got no worse hands to call and no better hands to fold bar KK maybe. Now, If I try the line of checking down and Check/Calling river even this guy may try and bluff us out on the river as we really do look that weak! I think he might actually be scared to bluff before the river in case we were trying to Check/Raise turn or something.
      I think if he calls that flop he most often doesn't have a hand that would bluff. If he called with KK or KJ/QJ he's checking down since he has no reason to bluff you with showdown value. Only hand I can imagine to play this way is KQ.
    • DaPhunk
      DaPhunk
      Bronze
      Joined: 01.03.2008 Posts: 2,805
      @Point 1- What do you mean less than 1 potsize bet left? If we miss flop that not true. (We have less than a potsize raise left if thats what you mean though)

      I'm just thinking that maybe if villain stabs pot with a weak Ace like A7s or something that he called for some reason He may somehow get away from it seeing himself behind against a stronger ace a lot of the time despite insanely good pot odds. I guess that this is not so likely though as its easier for him to justify a call than a fold in that spot.

      @Point 2- Why does it sound unwise to you? I will see If I can find any examples of where I did this succesfully to post although I don't recollect any recent hands where I tried it on an A high board.

      @Point 3- Can you explain why you mention Betting flop and Check/Calling turn? We arn't betting the flop.

      @Point 4- Again, we are not betting the flop.....
    • Gonzo394
      Gonzo394
      Bronze
      Joined: 29.12.2007 Posts: 2,181
      oh, *now* i see. i'm sry, i misunderstood you.

      to be honest, i didn't think much about missing (flop)cbets.

      am interested in some thoughts on that though.
    • DaPhunk
      DaPhunk
      Bronze
      Joined: 01.03.2008 Posts: 2,805
      Originally posted by Gonzo394
      oh, *now* i see. i'm sry, i misunderstood you.

      to be honest, i didn't think much about missing (flop)cbets.

      am interested in some thoughts on that though.
      I'll see If I can find a hand to post where I decided to take the check, check, Check/Call line. (Kinda hard though, my HM is reaaaaallly slow)
    • Tim64
      Tim64
      Black
      Joined: 02.11.2008 Posts: 7,401
      The point is that, I should technically be in a later position and Villain should be very LAG. A check can easily look like weakness in this spot and a foolish Aggressive guy can try take it down, if not on turn, on river.


      I see. I was trying to visualize the situation you were asking about in the context of the hand you posted (and I realise now that is not what you intended).

      So, yes, if you are raising in CO and a LAG calls you in BU (or if you are SB to villain's BB - so either way you're OOP) I agree that checking on an A-high board by Hero looks weak after an ATS and might well induce a bluff. Nevertheless, I'm not certain how often this line will be better than bet/folding when we have an underpair on an A-high board.

      If we consider the alternatives, Bet/Fold vs Check/Call, in examples 'A' and 'B' below, where in example 'A' villain does have an Ace and in 'B' he doesn't.

      Bet/Fold

      Example A: We bet, villain either calls or raises and we're done with the hand (we've invested 4bb for our raise and another ~6BB for our cbet on average = -10bb)

      Example B: We bet and (unless he is a maniac) villain folds = +5.5bb

      Overall, we lose 4.5bb.

      Check/Call

      Example A: We check for bluff induce, villain bets (either now or on the Turn), we call, and if bets again on the river, call again (we must if we have decided villain is bluffing)= -20bb

      Example B: We check for bluff induce, villain bets and we call. Most non-maniac villains ought to invest no more money here, so = +11.5bb (ie the additional 6bb bluff bet from villain)

      Overall, we lose 8.5bb.

      To summarise: if we check and villain bets we have to call in the line you're contemplating (i.e. we have to call when we believe that our opponent is the sort of opponent who would bluff). Now if we call, we are committed I think, so we'll win more when villain is bluffing but lose more when he's not.

      I know this oversimplifies but one has to, I guess, to some degree. What do you think?