Stopping Bluffs
 

This is a simple question if you can do the math. So I ask the math guys to not answer it. Plus I will be a bit vague numerically to keep things to estimates.

But this is an important question and I want to see how close you instictive types will get to the right answer by the seat of your pants.

You have an opponent who you play with regularly who bluffs alot on the river when the pot is pretty big and he is headsup with you. You estimate that one out of three of his river bets are bluffs. So you are always forced to call and lose that last bet two out of three times.

You think you have the ability to intimidate him into bluffing less often. It doesn't matter how. That's a good idea(because you can now make smart laydowns) as long as you can keep him bluffing on less than what percent of all these headup hands with you?

Re: Stopping Bluffs
 

Okay, a few assumptions before I answer- 1. This is limit, not pot or no limit; 2. I will beat him on half of the final called hands.

With the belief that there are 12 BB in the pot, if I keep him to bluffing 1/6 (16/17%) by my tactics, then I can make the appropriate calls to turn a profit.

Re: Stopping Bluffs
 

I've always thought of the right number as 20%. I could do the math, but I won't.

Re: Stopping Bluffs
 

If I know he is bluffing excessively why would I want to intimidate him into bluffing less? That would move him closer to the appropriate bluffing frequency.

What am I missing?

Re: Stopping Bluffs
 

i agree. if he bluffs 1 out of 3 times it's an easy call on most heads up rivers if the pot has anything in it at all. until you see his bluffing frequency change why not just call him 100% of the time the pot has more than 3 BB's in it(and you can beat a bluff) and 0% of the time it has less?

Re: Stopping Bluffs
 

If the pot is 'pretty big' and you want to make smart laydowns he has to bluff with 'pretty low' frequency. It's just totally dependant on the pot size.

Re: Stopping Bluffs
 

ok, then...no math...

my off the cuff feeling is that it doesn't need to be a huge change, but just enough to have the desired effect.

so without any math i'd say if you could drop the odds against a bluff to 4:1 you'd be in good shape. in your percentage terms: 20%.

-Barron

Re: Stopping Bluffs
 

yea but the idea is to get a general idea and venture a guess based on what you think...we could all do the math and get the answer but david requests we NOT do that.

so buck up and state an answer like the rest of us. [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]

-Barron

Re: Stopping Bluffs
 

Pretty sure this is all dependent on the pot amount and therefore I don't believe there is any set % of the time anyone can come up with...correct? Sometimes (with a very small pot) the opponent bluffing 1/3 times will be correct (for the opponent). Normally it will be way too often to bluff.

I didn't actually do the math but I think the answer would be 1/3*BB/pot or less. If this is off I think the actual math will come out to a similar equation with a set % x BB amount / pot size.

Basically the opponent bluffing way too much is a good thing and for the situation to improve the opponent would have to bluff way too little (probably close to never with decent sized pots) to have the situation improved.

This assumes that every time you call the bet when the opponent is not bluffing you lose (as I read it). Obviously this will not always be the case so in actuality I wouldn't do anything to discourage someone bluffing this frequently.

Re: Stopping Bluffs
 

I wont answer since i'd have to answer in terms of p for pot and the answer would be a little math equation. I can't explain it any other way and when i think about it that's how i think about it. This all depends on if the only way you can win the pot is by him bluffing, which isn't stated. To put it as a percentage without pot size i'd say ~12%

Re: Stopping Bluffs
 

Let me get this stright.

You're playing against a player who bluffs too much and you think it's a good idea to get him to bluff less?

I'll let other elaborate the logical flaw in the above reasoning.

- Andrew

www.pokerstove.com

Re: Stopping Bluffs
 

my initial "feel" was 10-15%. After thinking for awhile, I feel the number is 10%, possibly lower, for his bluffing % to make folding correct in big pots. Of course my thinking involved math....

Re: Stopping Bluffs
 

Since everyone else is guessing at a set percentage, I'll take a stab as well. As has been pointed out it does depend on pot size. But assuming an average pot of 5-10 BB's, I think the answer is lower than the guesses so far. With that pot range the correct bluffing percentage would be somewhere in the range of 10-20%. So I think the 12%-20% guesses so far would actually be about the worst case for you. I'm thinking 5% or less bluffing frequency to improve over the opponent bluffing far too often.

Re: Stopping Bluffs
 

I liked the more precise RGP version you had of a similar problem a while back, where lederer got jimmy warren to come up with a formula in terms of pot size.

speaking of pot size, it's very important in this question. how can we come up with a percentage if we don't know the odds a bet is laying?

--turnipmonster

Re: Stopping Bluffs
 

my objections notwithstanding, I'll go with 15%.

--turnipmonster

Re: Stopping Bluffs
 

[ QUOTE ]
Let me get this stright.

You're playing against a player who bluffs too much and you think it's a good idea to get him to bluff less?

I'll let other elaborate the logical flaw in the above reasoning.

[/ QUOTE ]

And I'll let others elaborate on the logical flaw in yours.

What's better than your opponent consistently making a big mistake? Your opponent consistently making a BIGGER mistake...

ML4L

So Far, Worst Responses Ever...
 

I can't believe how badly some pretty good players have butchered this...

Obviously, we need a definition of "big pot" to get precise with the answer, but I can tell you that it is NOT 20%, 15%, nor 10%. 5% is starting to look a little more like it, but depending on the actual pot size, it might be less.

My "official" guess will be 3%.

ML4L

Re: Stopping Bluffs
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Let me get this stright.

You're playing against a player who bluffs too much and you think it's a good idea to get him to bluff less?

I'll let other elaborate the logical flaw in the above reasoning.

[/ QUOTE ]

And I'll let others elaborate on the logical flaw in yours.


[/ QUOTE ]

There is no logic in my post. But good try.

[ QUOTE ]

What's better than your opponent consistently making a big mistake? Your opponent consistently making a BIGGER mistake...


[/ QUOTE ]

Are you arguing for or against my point?

- Andrew

www.pokerstove.com

Re: Stopping Bluffs
 

I'd like to change my answer to 5%

Re: Stopping Bluffs
 

Yes. He's argueing against. Would you rather have him bluff 1 in 3 times or bluff 1 in 100 times?

Re: Stopping Bluffs
 

Isn't the answer simply to keep him bluffing at a percentage less than the bet size divided by the size of the pot. So if we suggest that we consider the pot to be "pretty big" at 10 BBs, as long as he is bluffing less than 10% of the time , we can safely fold 100% of the time.

Luke

Re: Stopping Bluffs
 

No. As that may not be more profitable than the other situation.

Re: Stopping Bluffs
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Let me get this stright.

You're playing against a player who bluffs too much and you think it's a good idea to get him to bluff less?

I'll let other elaborate the logical flaw in the above reasoning.

[/ QUOTE ]

And I'll let others elaborate on the logical flaw in yours.


[/ QUOTE ]

There is no logic in my post. But good try.

[/ QUOTE ]

But, there was (poor) logic in your reasoning, which is what the word "yours" clearly described. Nice comeback.


[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What's better than your opponent consistently making a big mistake? Your opponent consistently making a BIGGER mistake...


[/ QUOTE ]

Are you arguing for or against my point?

[/ QUOTE ]

Against. If David would have said that you could get the guy to start bluffing 50% of the time, wouldn't that be a good thing? Yes. Big mistake (bluffing 1/3 of the time) goes to bigger mistake (bluffing 1/2 of the time).

Explain to me why it can't work in the other direction. For a while, down to 20%, 15%, etc., it is a step in the right direction for your opponent. The bluffing frequency gets closer to being in tune with game theory. But, once you pass the optimal point, he starts making mistakes again. And, eventually, once you get low enough, the mistake that he makes by almost never bluffing gets you MORE money than his bluffing too much now.

Thank you. So much.

ML4L

Re: Stopping Bluffs
 

To decide if you want him to bluff less often, the easiest question to analyze is this:
Which is more profitable? The current scenario, or him never bluffing at all?

The way you asked the question, if he value bets the river, you are always beat. Therefore, I think it's safe to assume that if he bluffs the river, you always have him beat.

If he never bluffs, all the sudden he never makes a profit on the river. So now the first question is simplified: Is his strategy more profitable than checking every river?

Since he averages 1/3 a bet per river bet he makes, clearly his strategy is more profitable than never bluffing.

Since he's bluffing about 3-4 times optimal frequency, I'd estimate that he'd need to bluff about 1/3rd to 1/4th of optimal frequency to create a more profitable river scenario.

Re: Stopping Bluffs
 

That was my exact thinking as well, which is how I came up with the equation in my first response. You gave a much better explanation.

Re: So Far, Worst Responses Ever...
 

here's how i did it with absolutely no math.

he currently bluffs 1/3 of the time.

we can intimidate him but how much is intimidation really going to do. we want him bluffing fewer times on the river so we can start making laydowns. therefore i felt that if we got him bluffing less than 33% as our "intimidation" would do it would be to our benefit. i didn't think we could get him down much past 20% so 4:1 i felt was just about right as far as the conditions david stated were taken into account....

clearly, we want the bluffing frequency of his to be WAY out of line. either way too much or way too little. granted 20% is near optimal frequency but how much is intimidation really going to affect his bluffing frequency...

guess i'm looking at it the wrong way as 1800's answer (and yours) is where we'd want him to be. i think david may be trying to point out how much force you have to put in the "bluff less" direction to show that we should really not be fighting the current and try to get him to just bluff MORE.

-Barron

Re: Stopping Bluffs
 

[ QUOTE ]
Yes. He's argueing against. Would you rather have him bluff 1 in 3 times or bluff 1 in 100 times?

[/ QUOTE ]

That's an excellent question. Unfortunatly, it doesn't take into acount what level of bluffing is correct.

Here's one for you to ponder. Who is more profitable to exploit, someone who bluffs twice as much as optimal, or somenoe who bluffs half as much as optimal?

- Andrew

Re: Stopping Bluffs
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Let me get this stright.

You're playing against a player who bluffs too much and you think it's a good idea to get him to bluff less?

I'll let other elaborate the logical flaw in the above reasoning.

[/ QUOTE ]

And I'll let others elaborate on the logical flaw in yours.


[/ QUOTE ]

There is no logic in my post. But good try.

[/ QUOTE ]

But, there was (poor) logic in your reasoning, which is what the word "yours" clearly described. Nice comeback.



[/ QUOTE ]

I'm sorry, what was the logical statement that I made? The only "reasoning" in my original post was David's. So, are you saying that there was poor logic in the reasoning?

Again, are you trying to argue for my point?

- Andrew

Re: Stopping Bluffs
 

I think I must be missing something about this question. How does asking the "intuitive types" to come up with a number accomplish anything? Even the "intuitive" players on this board can do the math for this question and if they are doing anything else when deciding how to play this, it has to do with deciding on a case by case basis what to do not with any numbers. Also, assuming a "big pot" is more than 3BB isn't he bluffing too much? Why are you stopping his bluffs, you need to go much farther in that direction than you would on inducing bluffs. If you can get him bluffing half the time or more you never have to fold and will overall make money on these calls.

Re: Stopping Bluffs
 

[ QUOTE ]
Here's one for you to ponder. Who is more profitable to exploit, someone who bluffs twice as much as optimal, or somenoe who bluffs half as much as optimal?

[/ QUOTE ]

the guy who bluffs 2x optimally always gets called. 1/2 the times you win and 1/2 the times you lose that extra bet. so you're overall expectation is 0.

the guy who bluffs .5x optimally never gets called and sometimes takes the pot away when you would have had the best hand, something that never occurs to the first opponent of the 2xoptimally bluffer.

-Barron

Re: Stopping Bluffs
 

Yes, once you've got him bluffing about a tenth as often as he was you've made an improvement. Thats damn hard to do and up to that point you're making him play better. I'm beginning to suspect that this was a trick question.

Re: Stopping Bluffs
 

Well one way to stop this is to play back at him more often. Check raise him more often as well.


But that goes out the window if this player is totally manical. He will call any bet any time and see all rivers as well. I'd say you just have to pick your spots then.


Ed S.

Re: Stopping Bluffs
 

[ QUOTE ]
Yes, once you've got him bluffing about a tenth as often as he was you've made an improvement. Thats damn hard to do and up to that point you're making him play better. I'm beginning to suspect that this was a trick question.

[/ QUOTE ]

my response to ML4L covers that david probably wanted to show how far you have to go against the current to get a person to not bluff vs. bluff more.

-Barron

Re: Stopping Bluffs
 

i am happy with an opponent that never bluffs on the river. as a matter of fact, i want an opponent that never bluffs.

oh the other hands, i also wouldn't mind if the opponent always bluffs, but never value bets on the river.

i think i am asking for too much...

Re: Stopping Bluffs
 

"That's a good idea(because you can now make smart laydowns) as long as you can keep him bluffing on less than what percent of all these headup hands with you?"

depends on how big a "pretty big pot" is. if by pretty big you mean 8 bets or 15 bets, that matters a lot.

Re: Stopping Bluffs
 

Without the math and estimating a pot of 10 BB I thought around 10%. Then I did the math and learned a valuable lesson.

-rory

Re: Stopping Bluffs
 

Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Yes, once you've got him bluffing about a tenth as often as he was you've made an improvement. Thats damn hard to do and up to that point you're making him play better. I'm beginning to suspect that this was a trick question.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



my response to ML4L covers that david probably wanted to show how far you have to go against the current to get a person to not bluff vs. bluff more.





Agreed. I think the number would be less than 5% because right now you have a profitable situation. You would have to go far the other direction to make it just as profitable. I'll say 3-4%.

Re: Stopping Bluffs
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Let me get this stright.

You're playing against a player who bluffs too much and you think it's a good idea to get him to bluff less?

I'll let other elaborate the logical flaw in the above reasoning.

[/ QUOTE ]

And I'll let others elaborate on the logical flaw in yours.


[/ QUOTE ]

There is no logic in my post. But good try.

[/ QUOTE ]

But, there was (poor) logic in your reasoning, which is what the word "yours" clearly described. Nice comeback.



[/ QUOTE ]

I'm sorry, what was the logical statement that I made? The only "reasoning" in my original post was David's. So, are you saying that there was poor logic in the reasoning?

[/ QUOTE ]

Let me try again. You wrote a post which implied that there was a logical flaw in David's post. Unless you somehow wrote the post by accident and/or without thinking, then there MUST have been some reasoning that you used to arrive at the conclusion that David's post was flawed.

Whatever reasoning or thought process led you to write your original post was flawed. Because there is NOTHING wrong with David's question. Just because you're apparently too dense to see his point doesn't mean that there is some logical flaw in his question.

[ QUOTE ]
Again, are you trying to argue for my point?

[/ QUOTE ]

Did you read the rest of my response and/or 1800's?

ML4L

Re: Stopping Bluffs
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Yes. He's argueing against. Would you rather have him bluff 1 in 3 times or bluff 1 in 100 times?

[/ QUOTE ]

That's an excellent question. Unfortunatly, it doesn't take into acount what level of bluffing is correct.

Here's one for you to ponder. Who is more profitable to exploit, someone who bluffs twice as much as optimal, or somenoe who bluffs half as much as optimal?

[/ QUOTE ]

David wanted that to guess that for ourselves based on his statement that the pot was large. I guessed around 10% to be optimal.

ML4L

Re: So Far, Worst Responses Ever...
 

Hey Dcifr,

[ QUOTE ]
i didn't think we could get him down much past 20% so 4:1 i felt was just about right as far as the conditions david stated were taken into account....

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
granted 20% is near optimal frequency but how much is intimidation really going to affect his bluffing frequency...

[/ QUOTE ]

1800 and I didn't have any trouble getting him lower than 20%. Guess he and I are just more intimidating than you... [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

[ QUOTE ]
guess i'm looking at it the wrong way as 1800's answer (and yours) is where we'd want him to be. i think david may be trying to point out how much force you have to put in the "bluff less" direction to show that we should really not be fighting the current and try to get him to just bluff MORE.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's also my guess as to why he posted it. But, you never know with him...

I suppose it turned out to be fruitful if that was the reason, because as you've implied, it would be impossible in real life to make someone's bluffing frequency to change so dramatically. So, as you state, you would want to worsen his current tendency (bluffing too much) rather than try to get him to switch tendencies...

ML4L