Believable Representation

[Louie Landale]

I've played against the VT VeryTight player, and has YET to turn over a hand with a card less than Ten. I doubt he's ever raised with AJ. He ROUTINELY checks one pair on the river, no matter what. I've never seen him bet or raise with a straight or flush draw.

I'm not in this one. VT raises from Middle position, gets a loose call and a reasonable call and the BB. Flop is 8h6h2c. VT bets, two calls, BB folds. Turn is 3d. Bet and 2 calls. River is 5h. VT bets, loose folds, and the reasonable player calls. VT turns over AcQc and bitches profusely on how bad the reasonable player must be to pay this one off with pocket 7s.

Now while the turn call with 77 was suspect (as was the PF call), nobody worth their salt can even THINK about laying it down on the river. And here's why:

VT did not flop a set nor make a straight. He is also VERY unlikely to have made a flush since he doesn't bet flush draws. He would NEVER bet one-pair on the river, especially when he got such a bad river card. This means there is no reasonable hand he can be betting for value on the river. This makes the river bet VERY suspicious and better than even money its a bluff.

When bluffing, you need to be able to actually represent a hand. That means there has to be reasonable good hands that you would play the same way as the hand you are conteplating bluffing.

- Louie

[Copernicus]

In fact, he represented AK or AQ by all of his pre-river actions, how can he not expect a 1 bet call that is getting 11/1 (if I didnt add the bets too fast!).

[Flashy]

Good Post -

The counterpart to this is not feeling that everytime you raise pre-flop with less than a premium pair you have to try and bulldoze your way to the pot.

That has been a leak in my game. I keep firing after raising preflop even when the flop misses me. I get called down or raised by someone with small pair who reasonably guesses that it is only 50/50 they are up against an over pair.

The good news is I now do the same thing back to other aggressive players when a weak flop hits. I have been amazed by some of the pots I have taken down.

Bluffing may not work in limit holdem - but it sure happens alot.

[JDO]

I have had the same problem turning pre--flop aggresiveness into a winning bluff if the flop misses me. Sometimes, it seems like pre-flop raises strengthens a "lesser" players resolve to see a hand to the river.
Anyway, I have one play that helps me win these bluffs and I was wondering if you had any. I use a check raise as soon as I can (gotta have a bet first; the change of speeds seems to shock some people out of the status quo of hitting call. Any other plays to use in this situation?

[Copernicus]

the lack of a checkraise is what I was referring to when I said he "represented AK or AQ" by his other actions. I dont know any other way to represent strength from EP.

[Flashy]

Good move - how often does it work?

A few times I reraised (3 bet) someone and was happy to see them fold. Obviously, it is becomming a common play to bluff back at the preflop raiser when rags flop. At the time, I was just trying to set up a free card or showdown.

A check raise with an expensive bet would probably be a stronger play - I know I would be impressed if someone pulled it on me. It would certainly get to me to fold if I was semi-bluffing, but if I had top pair, no way.

Mid Level Holdem suggests only trying to bulldoze with 3 or fewer players seeing the flop. Never with 5 or more.
4 players is border line.

That's a pretty good guideline which has helped keep me out of trouble. Although I still waste too many bets trying to win pots.


Like all things - what matters most is if the player your trying to bulldoze will throw away a pair. I once got someone who paired kings to fold because he thought I had paired an Ace. Unfortunately there arn't a whole lot of those players around.

Or maybe there are just enough to encourage me to try too often.

Like you, I bet out about most of the time if I raise PF and then miss the flop altogether to keep them guessing. When I notice that one or two opponents are catching up to my tactics and I get caught once or twice then I tend to slow down. OTOH, if I raise PF, catch the flop and win the hand in a showdown, I will revert to my original aggressive stance because I know they are watching the quality of my hand. To add confusion to my opponents, I will sometimes go for a check/raise even if I flop, say, top pair. By doing these gear-changing tactics, I find my bluffing success to increase significantly.

[huzitup2]

There is an incredible tendency for VTPs to try to bulldoze their way through pots after open-raising.

Most players do it more often than they should, but "this" group truly overdoes it.

*

A few days ago I got trapped for a pre-flop CAP with, coincidentally, 7-7.

- I had open-limped UTG, got called by a tight (but not rock-like) player in M/P, then watched as everyone except the SB folded. The BB then raised. I called, the M/P "TP" then 3-bet, the SB capped it, the BB called as did I and M/P.

- Is there aynone out there who folds 7-7 here ?

- I'm getting 7-1 (14 sb's in the pot and it costs me two to call).

- Wait, let me beat the nitpickers to the punch. I was actually getting 6.5-1, but there was no way M/P was going to fold for 1 more bet (although I'd have been thrilled to death if he had).

I didn't give much thought to the SB's cap - he could easily have just been making a "why not, someone else will" cap - he is definitely the type who would do this - but I was concerned by M/P's "call/3-bet".

The BB's raise was less concerning; in this situation "he" was apt to raise with a big Ace or big suited cards, but I was fairly convinced that M/P could not have less than AKs - more likely a big pair.

*

The flop came 8-6-4 rainbow.

The SB, of course, bet out. The BB called.

I raised; I KNEW M/P would fold AKs and MIGHT muck J-J or Q-Q in the face of what could be a capped flop.

He was my concern at this point. Perhaps I should have been more concerned than I was with the bet and call (SB, BB) but I figured the SB would bet almost anything here, and the smooth call from the BB meant he was either empty, had chosen (unwisely, IMO) to slowplay A-A, or was playing A-K very timidly.

M/P did fold, and the SB and BB just called.

The turn was another 8, the SB and BB checked, I bet again, and they both called.

The river was a 9 (no possible flush).

Both blinds checked, I (impulsively, oops) bet, the SB RAISED, the BB called, and I - very reluctantly - called.

The result:

SB . . . A-K

BB . . . A-K

*

Had the SB's check raise not been called by the BB I would have called without pause. Overcalling was not such an automatic decision, but I just couldn't bring myself to fold in a pot this big when my bet closed the action.

*

ANY and ALL comments appreciated, but my main question is -

*

WHAT WAS THE SMALL BLIND THINKING ?

*

Did he really think that he could get a better hand to fold OR a lesser hand to call ?

Or did he make a play that was so clever I am unable to see its merit(s) ?

*

Thanks in advance,

- H

[huzitup2]

and I'm sure your post intended to imply it, but . . .

Don't forget to check-raise either the flop or the turn (prefferably the flop, IMO) when you DO have a real hand.

If you do this often enough - not every time but more than most players do it - you will OCCASIONALLY be able to check-raise the flop AND the turn and get your opponent(s) to fold on the turn when you DON'T have a hand.

I don't like check-raising the turn without a hand unless I have a BIG draw but I do make - and get away with - this play (once every century or so) when holding a hand that might not have ANY outs.

Keyword: "might" . . .

The pot is rarely big enough to go for a check-raise on the turn as a pure bluff.

*

In addition to being (alot of) fun /images/graemlins/wink.gif, it's great to be able to check-raise the flop and turn and (rarely but it can be done occasionally) the river when you DO have a hand.

This opportunity arises most often when you open-raise with 9-9, T-T or J-J, get a flop that leaves you with an over-pair, spike your set on the turn, and have a scare card (either an Ace, or the third of a suit that pairs the board, etc.) land on the river.

There are other scenarios that allow you to check-raise all three rounds, but I'm drifting from the point.

Once your opponents see you check-raise three times in the same hand then roll over a big hand (or try to - it's not a catastrophe if you fail on one round because nobody is cooperative enough to bet), your subsequent check-raises should get called alot less frequently.

Naturally, this is to your advantage since most of your pre-flop raises are with big cards - not big pairs - and when you do hold big cards you'll miss the flop far more often than you'll hit it.

Best wishes,

- H

P.S. I really do need to work on stating my thoughts more concisely; I may very well be guilty of "loving the sound of my own voice" but this love does not extend to the PRINTED word :-).

[phish]

' VT turns over AcQc and bitches profusely on how bad the reasonable player must be to pay this one off with pocket 7s.'

This guy VT sounds like a real idiot berating his opponent for calling with the winner all the way. Personally, I don't see how the BB could have laid his hand down at any point, given the flop. I most likely would've played it stronger and put in a checkraise somewhere.
If VT is the type of player who would've folded the 77 in the BB because he automatically puts his opponent on a better hand, then VT is the classic weak-tight sucker who will get run over. Unlike the wild reckless player who occaisionally will book some big wins, VT will almost never win. Even if he runs real good, he may only book a small win.

[Louie Landale]

Successful spectacular check-raises that are noticed by the opponents should tend to [1] let you check-raise bluff later, and [2] let you get more free cards when you need them. Advertising with a check-raise should NOT be done in order for you to NOT get paid off when you check-raise later (with a good hand).

A note on [2]: cowering them into checking a pair on the flop is a BAD thing if you figure to fire on the turn if the flop is checked around (you figure your AQ is good since there was no flop bet). Making a play for a "free" card later doesn't do any good if you figure to invest even if you don't hit.

- Louie

[huzitup2]

in the loooooooose games I often find myself in, being able to steal even an occasional pot is (or would seem to be) much more valuable than snagging an extra bet or two.

Getting these people to call is SELDOM a problem.

Often I will go for hours without even contemplating (let alone making) a "play" at the pot; I just sit back (yawn) and wait for the inevitable big hand (and the big pot which accompanies it).

That said, it sure is nice to add an extra 5-6 bets to my stack if the "perfect" [bluffing] situation DOES arise.

Good to be back - missed ya Louie,

- H

[baggins]

i'll use a check-raise if i think it might give my opponents more reason to fold, instead of calling down my obvious bluff.

[Louie Landale]

I guess I forgot to point out that he hardly every bluffs, and everyone knows it. He's had no problem raising with AK, getting called heads up with the blind, and checking it down.

Never-the-less the ratio of bluffs-to-value-bets in the situation I described was pretty big.

- Louie