Hung
06-26-2003, 03:47 PM
I got a mail from some guy I have never met before. He asked me if I wanted to post this on my site. He made this for school. I'm not going to post it on the site because I don't agree with what he says. But can someone explain me what he's talking about? He says Sklansky is wrong!!
/forums/images/icons/confused.gif /forums/images/icons/confused.gif /forums/images/icons/confused.gif
</font><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr />
Bluffing
Each time you tell somebody that you play poker to make some extra money they always assume you are cheat. After convincing them that you are not, their next question usually is; so you must be a good bluffer?.
People that don’t know anything about pokertheory believe it is a bluffing game, that it is all about putting your balls on that table. Frankly, bluffing is only a small part of a pokerplayer his arsenal. To become a winning player one should understand concepts as pot odds, effective odds, the gap-concept, reading people and their hands, psychology, reverse psychology and bluffing as an art and science.
To make certain everybody knows what I am talking about I will define bluffing as the following; ‘A bet or a raise with a hand of which you don’t think is the best competing in the pot.’
Many poker authorities have their own ideas on the concept bluffing, unfortunately their not all completely right.
In the theory of poker Sklansky writes the following;
Optimum Bluffing Strategy,
Let’s say I choose specifically six key cards to bluff with. That means I will bet 24 times. Eighteen of those times I have the best hand, and six of those times I am bluffing. Therefore, the odds against me bluffing are exactly 3-to-1. The pot is $200, and when I bet, there is $300 in the pot. Thus your pot odds are also 3-to-1. You are calling $100 to win $300. Now when the odds against my bluffing are identical to the odds you are getting from the pot, it makes absolutely no difference whether you call or fold. Furthermore, whatever you do, you will still lose exactly $600 after 42 hands.(42 represents the number of unseen cards)
If you were to fold every time I bet, I would beat you out of $100 24 times when I bet and lose $100 to you 18 times when I don’t bet, for a profit of $600.
If you were to call me every time, you would beat me out of $200 six times when I am bluffing and $100 18 times when I don’t bet, for a total of $3000; but I would beat you out of $200 18 times when I bet my good hands for a total of $3600. Once again my profit $600. So other than being a psychic, there is no way in the world you can prevent me from winning that $600 per 42 hands, giving me a positive expectation of $14,29 per hand. Bluffing exactly six times out of 24 has turned a hand that was a 4-to-3 underdog when I didn’t bluff at all into a 4-to-3 favourite—no matter what strategy you use against me.
“Now when the odds against my bluffing are identical to the odds you are getting from the pot, it makes absolutely no difference whether you call or fold.”
I believe this theory is incomplete since Sklansky forgets to state that the number of times you bet has to be more than 50% than the number of unseen cards.
In the following example we will bet less than 50%, we will bet 20 out of 42 unseen cards.(is 47,6%)
Let’s say that 15 cards will make us a winner and we will bluff 5 cards. 15/5 makes the odds again 3-to-1. We will also use the same pot as in Sklansky’s example $200 and a $100 bet.
Now if my opponent were to fold every time I bet I would beat him out of $100 20 times for a total of $2000. When I don’t bet my opponent will beat me out of $100 22 times for a total of $2200. In the long run this will be $200 loss for me!
Now if my opponent were to call every time I bet I would win $200 15 times for a total of $3000. When he calls me every time he will also catch me bluffing 5 times for a total of $1000. The 22 times I don’t bet he will also take a $100 of me for a total of $2200. Put those together my opponent will win $3200 versus my $3000 which gives me an other negative expectation of $200.
When we take this into account we find that this theory is pretty much useless since you need to bet too many cards to justify the odds.
You can only bet a Straight Flush draw on a very small pot, but a hand like that should be played pretty aggressive to force people to drop.
“Now when the odds against my bluffing are identical to the odds you are getting from the pot, it makes absolutely no difference whether you call or fold.”
I’m sorry Sklansky but unfortunately it does make a difference.
[/ QUOTE ]
/forums/images/icons/confused.gif /forums/images/icons/confused.gif /forums/images/icons/confused.gif
</font><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr />
Bluffing
Each time you tell somebody that you play poker to make some extra money they always assume you are cheat. After convincing them that you are not, their next question usually is; so you must be a good bluffer?.
People that don’t know anything about pokertheory believe it is a bluffing game, that it is all about putting your balls on that table. Frankly, bluffing is only a small part of a pokerplayer his arsenal. To become a winning player one should understand concepts as pot odds, effective odds, the gap-concept, reading people and their hands, psychology, reverse psychology and bluffing as an art and science.
To make certain everybody knows what I am talking about I will define bluffing as the following; ‘A bet or a raise with a hand of which you don’t think is the best competing in the pot.’
Many poker authorities have their own ideas on the concept bluffing, unfortunately their not all completely right.
In the theory of poker Sklansky writes the following;
Optimum Bluffing Strategy,
Let’s say I choose specifically six key cards to bluff with. That means I will bet 24 times. Eighteen of those times I have the best hand, and six of those times I am bluffing. Therefore, the odds against me bluffing are exactly 3-to-1. The pot is $200, and when I bet, there is $300 in the pot. Thus your pot odds are also 3-to-1. You are calling $100 to win $300. Now when the odds against my bluffing are identical to the odds you are getting from the pot, it makes absolutely no difference whether you call or fold. Furthermore, whatever you do, you will still lose exactly $600 after 42 hands.(42 represents the number of unseen cards)
If you were to fold every time I bet, I would beat you out of $100 24 times when I bet and lose $100 to you 18 times when I don’t bet, for a profit of $600.
If you were to call me every time, you would beat me out of $200 six times when I am bluffing and $100 18 times when I don’t bet, for a total of $3000; but I would beat you out of $200 18 times when I bet my good hands for a total of $3600. Once again my profit $600. So other than being a psychic, there is no way in the world you can prevent me from winning that $600 per 42 hands, giving me a positive expectation of $14,29 per hand. Bluffing exactly six times out of 24 has turned a hand that was a 4-to-3 underdog when I didn’t bluff at all into a 4-to-3 favourite—no matter what strategy you use against me.
“Now when the odds against my bluffing are identical to the odds you are getting from the pot, it makes absolutely no difference whether you call or fold.”
I believe this theory is incomplete since Sklansky forgets to state that the number of times you bet has to be more than 50% than the number of unseen cards.
In the following example we will bet less than 50%, we will bet 20 out of 42 unseen cards.(is 47,6%)
Let’s say that 15 cards will make us a winner and we will bluff 5 cards. 15/5 makes the odds again 3-to-1. We will also use the same pot as in Sklansky’s example $200 and a $100 bet.
Now if my opponent were to fold every time I bet I would beat him out of $100 20 times for a total of $2000. When I don’t bet my opponent will beat me out of $100 22 times for a total of $2200. In the long run this will be $200 loss for me!
Now if my opponent were to call every time I bet I would win $200 15 times for a total of $3000. When he calls me every time he will also catch me bluffing 5 times for a total of $1000. The 22 times I don’t bet he will also take a $100 of me for a total of $2200. Put those together my opponent will win $3200 versus my $3000 which gives me an other negative expectation of $200.
When we take this into account we find that this theory is pretty much useless since you need to bet too many cards to justify the odds.
You can only bet a Straight Flush draw on a very small pot, but a hand like that should be played pretty aggressive to force people to drop.
“Now when the odds against my bluffing are identical to the odds you are getting from the pot, it makes absolutely no difference whether you call or fold.”
I’m sorry Sklansky but unfortunately it does make a difference.
[/ QUOTE ]