Inducing a bluff on the end

[Tosh]

For me, this is the most overused term on this board at the moment. I don't know if its an excuse to check call instead of betting and risking the raise but it seems to feature in every thread with a river question. Most of the board plays at Party where people love to call, why not let them.

[Gramps]

I agree that's it's often used as an excuse to play passively on the end. And there are a lot of Party games where people will call on the end with total garbage, so you're better off betting the end with some less than stellar holdings.

At the same time, other Party games like the 6-max games (5/10 at least) are full of more LAG players who love to bluff when checked to, but who won't call on the end without at least a decent pair. Against a lot of these players, it's still more profitable to check in many spots.

"Value checking" is still the right play at times, so long as the logic adds up to make it the best play.

[thirddan]

I admit, i do this sometimes as an excuse to check/call, but im working on it...

[bdk3clash]

Bet the river. (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=micro&Number=796823&Forum= ,All_Forums,&Words=&Searchpage=0&Limit=25&Main=796 823&Search=true&where=&Name=3376&daterange=&newerv al=&newertype=&olderval=&oldertype=&bodyprev=#Post 796823)

[PassiveCaller]

Only better hands calling is something to worry about more with better opponents. The vast majority of the knuckleheads on partypoker don't fall into this and will call with a vast majority of anything. How many times have I seen 44 call with like 3 overcards? But hey... I like that strategy /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

[Tosh]

There you go, calling with Jack high, and there are some who question their opponents calling bottom pair??

[bdk3clash]

Have I mentioned that worse hands will call?

Party Poker 1/2 Hold'em (10 handed)

Preflop: bdk3clash is MP2 with K/images/graemlins/spade.gif, Q/images/graemlins/heart.gif.
UTG folds, UTG+1 calls, UTG+2 calls, MP1 folds, bdk3clash raises, MP3 folds, CO calls, Button folds, SB folds, BB calls, UTG+1 calls, UTG+2 calls.

Flop: (10.50 SB) T/images/graemlins/club.gif, J/images/graemlins/spade.gif, T/images/graemlins/diamond.gif <font color="blue">(5 players)</font>
BB checks, UTG+1 checks, UTG+2 folds, bdk3clash bets, CO folds, BB calls, UTG+1 calls.

Turn: (6.75 BB) 5/images/graemlins/heart.gif <font color="blue">(3 players)</font>
BB checks, UTG+1 checks, bdk3clash bets, BB folds, UTG+1 calls.

River: (8.75 BB) 2/images/graemlins/club.gif <font color="blue">(2 players)</font>
UTG+1 checks, bdk3clash bets, UTG+1 calls.

Final Pot: 10.75 BB

Results below:
UTG+1 shows 7s Qd (one pair, tens).
bdk3clash shows Ks Qh (one pair, tens).
Outcome: bdk3clash wins 10.75 BB.

[Kevin J]

[ QUOTE ]
Most of the board plays at Party where people love to call, why not let them.

[/ QUOTE ]

They also love to bluff and bet 2nd best hands. It's all about what makes the most money. I'm all for value betting, even razor thin bets at times, but if there's a good enough chance your opponent will fold to a bet, added to the possibility that he might raise with a better hand, but will now bet or bluff if you check, then checking becomes the best play. (unless of course, you feel there's an even better chance you can induce a bluff/raise from a worse hand). Again, it's all about what has the most pos EV. Often it's betting, but sometimes it's checking. Judgement and experience should guide you here.

[Michael Davis]

Plus, you can't induce a bluff when you check TT from last position. /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

-Michael

[Tosh]

Well it was the right check wasn't it! My reads are never wrong. /images/graemlins/wink.gif

[Tosh]

Generally the best hands to induce a bluff with are unimproved AK/AQ and bottom pair.

[J.R.]

Generally the best hands to induce a bluff with are unimproved AK/AQ and bottom pair.

The range hands you put your opponent and the manner in which you have played your hand are far more relevant to the determination of whether to attempt to induce a bluff. Your hand is essentially irrelevant, unless it is of such obvious strength (and you have played it consistent with a hand of such strength) that you can't expect your opponent to bluff frequently enough.

Your hand is far more relevant when considering value betting.

[Tosh]

I am talking about a specific run through for the hand where you have bet the first 2 streets on generally disjointed boards.

[bdk3clash]

Party Poker 1/2 Hold'em (10 handed)

Preflop: bdk3clash is BB with K/images/graemlins/club.gif, A/images/graemlins/diamond.gif.
UTG folds, UTG+1 folds, UTG+2 folds, MP1 folds, MP2 calls, MP3 folds, CO folds, Button raises, SB folds, bdk3clash 3-bets, MP2 folds, Button calls.

Flop: (7.50 SB) 6/images/graemlins/diamond.gif, J/images/graemlins/club.gif, 6/images/graemlins/club.gif <font color="blue">(2 players)</font>
bdk3clash bets, Button calls.

Turn: (4.75 BB) 5/images/graemlins/spade.gif <font color="blue">(2 players)</font>
bdk3clash bets, Button calls.

River: (6.75 BB) 9/images/graemlins/spade.gif <font color="blue">(2 players)</font>
bdk3clash bets, Button calls.

Final Pot: 8.75 BB

Results below:
bdk3clash shows Kc Ad (one pair, sixes).
Button shows Ac Qh (one pair, sixes).
Outcome: bdk3clash wins 8.75 BB.

[elindauer]

This seems like a classic hand to check on the river. What are you hoping for with your bet? I think you got very lucky.

my 2 cents.
Eric

[J.R.]

How is your hand relevant in this spot? It seems to me that the primary issue is whether your opponent has a hand that won't call a river bet but may bluff. Whether you have a set or nut no pair is irrelvant to the issue in this spot- what will your opponent do with the range of hands you put him on if you bet or if you check?

[J.R.]

Of course they will, and that's why you should aggressively value bet in such games. But that has no bearing on the fact that your hand is not a very relevant consideration when deciding whether to induce a bluff. Your hand is relevant when deciding to value bet, but not when deciding to induce a bluff (the hand you have represented through your play is a far more important consideration when thinking about inducing a bluff).

[Tosh]

How is it irrelevant ? If on the river you believe your hand is best you're surely much more likely to check to induce a bluff with AK than a set ? Obviously I don't deny what you are saying but is your hand really completely irrelevant, you cannot be sure your opponent will bluff or that he has nothing to call you with so the quality of your hand determines how much you are giving up by letting him take a showdown.

Feel free to correct me though.

[J.R.]

Sounds like we are having a sematic debate, because my point is only that your hand is essentially irrelvant in the determination of the merits of inducing a bluff. What matters in inducing a bluff is what your opponent likely has (can he only win with a bluff, ie a missed flush draw, or does he have enough that he wants to showdown for free), how aggressive your opponent is, and how strong of a hand you have represented.

What your hand is relevant to is the decison to value bet, because (obviously) the bigger your hand, the more of your opponent's possible hands you can beat, and the weaker your hand, the fewer of your oppoent's possible hands you can beat.

I think the semantic problem arises from the fact that the in deciding what to do on the river, you should consider the merits of both 1) value betting and 2) inducing a bluff and choose the best option. If your hand is weak (like A high or bottom pair) the merits of value betting will be low, so you might be more inclined to induce a bluff because of relative little merit in a value betting. But you still need to evaluate the merits of inducing a bluff, and in evalauting the merits of inducing a bluff your hand is an insignificant consideration.

The weakness of your hand might be a reason not to value bet, but that isn't a reason to induce a bluff.

[bdk3clash]

[ QUOTE ]
This seems like a classic hand to check on the river. What are you hoping for with your bet? I think you got very lucky.

my 2 cents.
Eric

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not advocating my play in this hand or anything, but I think it serves to illustrate that worse hands will call so often, especially at the low limits on Party, that in the original poster's hand he has a clear value bet on the river.

[Kevin J]

You have every reason to think your hand is best and that your opponent will look you up on the river with a worse ace. Also, you'd be a bigger dog here if you checked (and called his bet), so you may as well bet the river yourself. This is NOT a good example of what we're talking about by inducing river bets. Is it possible you played this hand well by accident?

[Kevin J]

If you check the river and your opponet bets, you will probably be a bigger dog than if you bet it yourself. Therefore, betting makes more sense here.

[Kevin J]

I think JR has it about right. An example would be in 7-stud when your board shows 4 of a kind against an opponent who appears to be drawing at a str8 flush. You have no reason to bet your hand on 7th street as you can only be called (or raised) by a better hand. Therefore, you should check what is in all likelihood the best hand and hope your opponent will try to bluff. Notice how the strength of your hand has little to do with whether or not you should bet.

[bdk3clash]

[ QUOTE ]
You have every reason to think your hand is best and that your opponent will look you up on the river with a worse ace. Also, you'd be a bigger dog here if you checked (and called his bet), so you may as well bet the river yourself. This is NOT a good example of what we're talking about by inducing river bets. Is it possible you played this hand well by accident?

[/ QUOTE ]

I guess so, since the alternative (that I played well on purpose) is unthinkable. /images/graemlins/grin.gif