Is this the "classic" inducing a bluff line?

[SuitedSixes]

Is this the classic way to induce a bluff? Just a hypothetical hand . . .

Basically you make a continuation bet (or something else to build a pot), then show weakness correct?

Early in a tournament. Hero (MP) has KK and raises 5X, gets the button to call. Everyone else folds.

Flop comes Q97. Hero leads out with a (up to) pot-sized bet, making it look like a continuation bet on an AK-whiff. Villain calls. Turn a 4. Hero checks.

Do I have the line right thus far? What's the play when...

A) Villain bets on turn. Call and then value bet the river? Drop the check/raise bomb?

B) Villain checks turn. Lead out on the river, or hope for a bet from villain to raise?

[splashpot]

I'm pretty sure you wouldn't want to check the turn in your example. The threat of the villian checking behind and hitting an ace on the river is too dangerous. A better example would be if you it middle set with no flush draw or something like that. In order to slow play, the free card must not be too dangerous.

[redrooski24]

I use this line on a lot actually. The board in your example however, is a little too action packed for my liking to use this line and check the turn. Give me a flop of 844 or the like and I'll use this play a lot.

[Shilly]

For A, I think it depends on the texture of the board. If there's a lot of connectivity, I'll make the check-raise on the turn. Change the 9 to a 7 in the example you posted, and I'll check/call, and usually lead the river.

For B, I'll lead out on the river. This is because if they didn't bet the turn, they're probably trying to get to the showdown cheaply (thus checking behind on the river), but might call a small river bet.

[SuitedSixes]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm pretty sure you wouldn't want to check the turn in your example. The threat of the villian checking behind and hitting an ace on the river is 6.5%

[/ QUOTE ]

FYP

[splashpot]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'm pretty sure you wouldn't want to check the turn in your example. The threat of the villian checking behind and hitting an ace on the river is 6.5%

[/ QUOTE ]

FYP

[/ QUOTE ]
It's not just the ace you're worried about. The fact that the guy called your flop "continuation bet" suggests that he hit the flop in some way. He could have 5 outs or more.

[Shilly]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'm pretty sure you wouldn't want to check the turn in your example. The threat of the villian checking behind and hitting an ace on the river is 6.5%

[/ QUOTE ]

FYP

[/ QUOTE ]
It's not just the ace you're worried about. The fact that the guy called your flop "continuation bet" suggests that he hit the flop in some way. He could have 5 outs or more.

[/ QUOTE ]

Keep in mind, even though a scare card might not help his hand, it makes the river a lot tougher to play. That's why I'd go with a turn check-raise here.

[splashpot]

[ QUOTE ]
Keep in mind, even though a scare card might not help his hand, it makes the river a lot tougher to play. That's why I'd go with a turn check-raise here.

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm not sure if you're agreeing or disagreeing with me here. I recommend against the turn check/raise because he might check behind which hurts you too much. I don't think you can check that turn.

[Shilly]

I'm sorry, I got confused. I agree with you in principle, but I was applying what was said to example A.

[SlackerMcFly]

Assuming that the flop is rainbow and Villain is a chick:

Turn: Hero lubes up and bets 1/3 villain stack hoping for the spread to occur. Villain complies. Hero has slipped it in partially.

Better yet:
Turn: Hero erects a bet of 1/3 villain stack. If raised: Hero spasms a re-raise all-in.
If called: Hero makes the "goofy face" and has a smoke.
If villain folds, Hero loses interest and looks around for another opportunity to spew chips.

A). Hero pumps weakly after the villain bet to tittilate and comes over the top when re-heaved.

B). Hero jams it all the way in and phones his mom after Villain completes the dirty deed with her JKo.

I need a shower. SlackeUhUhUhUhAhhh!

[The Yugoslavian]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'm pretty sure you wouldn't want to check the turn in your example. The threat of the villian checking behind and hitting an ace on the river is 6.5%

[/ QUOTE ]

FYP

[/ QUOTE ]
It's not just the ace you're worried about. The fact that the guy called your flop "continuation bet" suggests that he hit the flop in some way. He could have 5 outs or more.

[/ QUOTE ]

Inducing bluffs and making value calls in short stack STTs is a very very valuable tactic, IMO.

You will have to think about what you're saying some more before you will even be open to thinking about it as a pot manipulation technique.

Yugoslav

[bones]

[ QUOTE ]
Inducing bluffs and value calling your nuts in short stack STTs is a very very valuable tactic, IMO

[/ QUOTE ]

[The Yugoslavian]

Suited, here is an image to go with Slacker's masterpiece:

http://69.93.50.122/wonderfulgirls/photos/D3EE1CDBBEFF4374A2CDADC896210C5B.jpg

Yugoslav

[ajmargarine]

Without getting into an arguement over semantice, I think the "classic" inducing a bluff line, is to bet flop, bet turn, check to the caller who you thought was drawing the whole way and missed, so that instead of him just folding to your river value bet, you give him the chance to fire at it. That, IMO, is the basic classic inducing a bluff we talk about over in the NL forum.