TOP Question

[twomarks]

I hate to post this and remove all doubt that I don't know my 72o from my 72s, but here goes:

The Theory of Poker states - well you know what it states - I'll just get on with my question:

In a no-limit situation, part of the benefit to being the aggressor is getting people to lay down hands that may be superior to yours; however, I wouldn't knowingly bet into someone with a better hand unless I was bluffing. Bluffing, at least in my game, comes into play on a limited basis (I'm currently at small stakes NL tables at UB).

So do I understand the theory correctly when I ask "Am I losing money when I bet into a player who has a better hand than I do and get him to lay down?"

Thanks for the patience,

twomarks

[MaxPower]

I think you are talking about the Fundamental Theorem of Poker.

According to the FTOP you are gaining when your opponent plays his hand differenty than he would if he knew your cards. So of course you are not losing money when you bluff and your opponent lays down a better hand. That really isn't an important question.

The important question is are you losing money on your bluffs? You could be losing money on your bluffs even if they work frequently.

[jdl22]

[ QUOTE ]

So do I understand the theory correctly when I ask "Am I losing money when I bet into a player who has a better hand than I do and get him to lay down?"


[/ QUOTE ]

No. If he lays it down you have gained money. If he calls you then you have lost money on the bet (but have actually gained something in that he didn't raise, it's more of losing less than gaining). The trick is that you want him to play his hand differently from the way he should play if he could see your cards. If you get him to fold a winner clearly he has done so so you gain.

[pokerswami]

[ QUOTE ]
In a no-limit situation, ...

[/ QUOTE ]
as a reminder:
from page 5, The Theory of Poker
(in a small section titled "Poker Logic")

"While the concepts discussed often apply to all poker games, they relate particularly to limit games. Properly adjusted, they also relate to pot-limit and no-limit games. However, they do not always relate to games like high-low split, in which there are two winners in a pot.

[twomarks]

Thanks for the input guys. I knew I was missing something.

twomarks

[motorholdem]

Don't let the thinking of betting into a better hand as ONLY bluffing. The reason is many times you are betting into hands that may not yet be better, but have a greater potential to improve than yours. Think of it more about what you trying to have the bet "represent."

If you have 77 for example, and you make a larger bet than normal with 77 pre-flop, you might be doing so for at least three purposes.

1. You want a lesser hand (like AK or AQs) to fold before it can improve to beat you. In that case you are not bluffing. After all, your 77s are better - for now!!!

2. You may want to get suited or connected cards out of the pot before a flush or OESD develops. That is not bluffing.

3. You may want 88's 99' or 1010 to laydown. In that case one could argue that you are bluffing.

I guess it's too general to just call it bluffing or not bluffing. it's not black or white.

This why you see in NL some very large bets on mid-size pairs. As the adage goes, by betting you have two ways to win. The opponent can fold, or you can have the best hand. Your opponent, howver, can only win by having the best hand.

PS. Now if he raises, he has two ways of wining and you only have one......lol