Sklansky's article on bluff raising from the BB

[microbet]

Here (http://www.twoplustwo.com/magazine/current/sklansky0505.html)

Interesting article. Difficult to apply to a STT, but how about here:

4 players left and one small stack or 5 players and 2 small stacks.

Small stacks all fold and one or more medium or large stack limp to you in the BB.

You and the limpers have more than, say 12 BBs.

You think you have good FE if you raise to 3BBs (so maybe just one limper from button - or limping stations).

Is it better to make this raise with trash than with a mediocre hand?

[UMTerp]

Others may argue differently, but I'd always rather have the mediocre hand, provided you're disciplined enough to release it if reraised preflop. If you're called, might as well have the better cards...

[Bigwig]

[ QUOTE ]
Others may argue differently, but I'd always rather have the mediocre hand, provided you're disciplined enough to release it if reraised preflop. If you're called, might as well have the better cards...

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree. But better yet, I'd rather have it be a situation where I'm comfortable pushing all-in. I don't like to be called out of position with 12BB in my stack.

[gumpzilla]

It's a pretty good general maxim that bluffs should be made with your worst hands, because with good but not great hands you've got pretty good value just checking or calling, whereas the only play that can show value with trash is the bluff. I think this applies more in limit than in no-limit, but I think it's still a useful idea in NL.

I read an interesting article on RGP by Tom Weideman a while ago that illustrates this idea pretty nicely using [0,1] poker as the construct for arguing. Say you and I get dealt real numbers between 0 and 1 inclusive. Now, let's say that I get to choose whether to bet or check, and you get to choose to call or fold if I bet. Let's say I know you're going to play a strategy of calling whenever you have a hand greater than .5. With what hands should I bet?
Here's the crux of the issue: if my hand is less than .5 and I bet, I will lose if you call me. So for all hands less than .5, my equity is the same if I bet. On the other hand, if I check, my equity decreases as my number decreases; if I have .1, it's very unlikely that you're going to have a number smaller than me. The upshot of this is that for sufficiently small numbers, it becomes the case that betting - bluffing, in this case - has a higher equity than showing down.

EDIT: You'll also note that in the article, Sklansky is talking about situations where everybody is >=50 BBs deep so it's not very relevant to SNG bubble play. Rereading your post, I see that you acknowledge that. Oops.

[schwza]

sklansky writes: [ QUOTE ]
Meanwhile, when the big raise doesn't win immediately it is because it got reraised. That makes sense, right? Good players will find few calling hands in this spot. Your big raise forced them to fold almost all their hands and reraise with their very best.

[/ QUOTE ]

if that is true, the rest of his article makes sense. but i don't think it's true at the levels that i (and most others) play. limp-call is a staple of fishy play.

[Newt_Buggs]

[ QUOTE ]
sklansky writes: [ QUOTE ]
Meanwhile, when the big raise doesn't win immediately it is because it got reraised. That makes sense, right? Good players will find few calling hands in this spot. Your big raise forced them to fold almost all their hands and reraise with their very best.

[/ QUOTE ]

if that is true, the rest of his article makes sense. but i don't think it's true at the levels that i (and most others) play. limp-call is a staple of fishy play.

[/ QUOTE ]
I was just about to say the same thing. Maybe at higher limits players will rarely if ever cold call a big raise, but at the 30s it happens all the time