Marcel "Bluff"

[Mason Malmuth]

HGi Everyone:

I read the following from the August Bluff magazine. It's by Marcel Luske, is titled "7-Card Stud," and appears on page 108.

[ QUOTE ]
In 7-Card Stud, bluffing and semi-bluffing become more prevalent when there are bigger blinds and meaningful antes. In many scenarios, when the blinds get big, they will force the player to see the hand all the way through once they are in. This is especially true with a small stack, and in most cases is the correct play. There is a distinct possibility that you can outdraw the better hand and take a large pot in doing so.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm going to let other elaborate. However, it does make me think a little about how the approach to our own Two Plus Two Internet Magazine is a little different.

Best wishes,
Mason

[jdl22]

So you don't let people make statements then refute them?

[afish]

No bluffing and semi-bluffing allowed in the 2+2 mag?

[nate1729]

Is that more or less coherent than the average Ken Warren passage? I surprise myself by voting less.

[Pov]

[ QUOTE ]
No bluffing and semi-bluffing allowed in the 2+2 mag?

[/ QUOTE ]

I believe Mr. Malmuth is pointing out that Luske appears to be contradicting himself.

[ QUOTE ]
bluffing and semi-bluffing become more prevalent

[/ QUOTE ]

doesn't go with

[ QUOTE ]
In many scenarios, when the blinds get big, they will force the player to see the hand all the way through once they are in.

[/ QUOTE ]

It doesn't make a lot of sense to bluff or semi-bluff when your opponent has odds to draw out even if you showed him a better hand. Not having read the article myself, I can only assume Luske meant to say stealing the antes was important. Then again, if you can find an opponent who will fold too much late in a hand, I can't imagine a much better opponent to face in 7-stud.

[Beavis68]

Bluff magazine doesn't let Sklansky write whatever incoherent passages he chooses?

[lucydeucy]

I believe I will expound upon the contradictions in Luske's thought process. Hopefully, Mason will elaborate as well.

In order for the semi-bluff to be a profitable play in any aspect of poker, the opportunity for fold equity must exist. In the aforementioned instance in Luske's article, versus a pot committed small stack, the exact opposite situation exists, making the semi-bluff play completely useless and fundamentally unprofitable.

Luske's noted situation would be slightly less -EV as making a cold bluff into a pot where the opponent is obviously pot committed due to the opportunity to improve to the winning hand.

lucydeucy

[Beavis68]

I think the point Marcel is trying to make is; if you are going to see the hand through to the end, you may as well bet aggressively to try to take it down now.

But I would have to read the whole article.

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
I read the following from the August Bluff magazine.

[/ QUOTE ]
Are you saying we should subscribe ?

[ QUOTE ]
I'm going to let other elaborate.

[/ QUOTE ]
What other ?

What happened to the first guy ?

[fnord_too]

I am not sure what to elaborate on, other than it is pretty fuzzy. The basic idea is no different than trying to steal the blinds with a push in a NL tournament when you are short. If you go to steal the ante's, and someone comes along, you may be comitted to the hand even if you know you are behind. It really does not give me any useful insight, but there are a lot of players who cannot grasp this sort of notion. (Like a player with 5BB who mini raises then folds to a push. I see this sort of thing a lot).

This quote is out of context, but I am guessing he does not go into things like chip equity and cashing equity in any appreciable detail. That's fine though if the magazine is aimed at neophytes IMO. (Of course that same neophyte may read that to mean every time you complete or raise on third street you are pot comitted...)

[stipper30]

Ok, I'll bite

Marcel Luske (http://pokerdb.thehendonmob.com/player.php?a=s&n=163)

Mason Malmuth (http://pokerdb.thehendonmob.com/search.php?a=p&t=0&match=1&fld=a&s=malmuth)

[SNOWBALL138]

Mason doesn't play tournaments...

[Mason Malmuth]

Hi Snowball:

I do have some plans to change that in the future. Whether it actually happens depends on our publishing business.

Best wishes,
Mason

[Mason Malmuth]

Hi Everyone:

Whether Marcel Luske is actually knowledgeable is something I don't know. This is really a criticism of the magazine.

First off, seven-card stud doesn't have blinds. It does have a bring-in, but that is different from a blind and affects the game in strategically different ways from a blind. (For one, a bring-in is a much smaller amount than a full bet like a blins is in hold 'em.)

Second, as some have already pointed out,the statement is contradictory. If the game structure is causing your opponents to "see the hand all the way through," then your bluffing/semi-bluffing should be reduced. We make this point in SCSFAP.

Best wishes,
Mason

[Leroy Soesman]

To be quite honoust, I find it easier to believe that the magazine printed a wrong quote than that Luske made a mistake this stupid.

[BarronVangorToth]

I do not want to speak for Mason, but my impression of what he was implying wasn't that Marcel was wrong or not, but rather that the magazine printed something so ridiculous. Whether Marcel said it or not isn't really an issue - it's that the magazine would highlight such a quote in the first place. The main reason to have the quote IF they knew it to be false would be to mock Marcel, which is likewise not their intent, in my opinion.

While some may point to the occasional odd formatting error that occured with the 2+2 magazine in its earlier stages, across the board, the thinking perpetuated was proper and not erroneous as talking about blinds in 7-card Stud or providing incorrect bluffing strategy.

Barron Vangor Toth
BarronVangorToth.com