bluff
 

6max 2/4 pokerstars, I havent been playing much at all. combination of classes, moving, and reading 2p2 i suppose. [So my game may be off]

Thoughts on this play:

99 in CO, I've been raising alot, I make it 12, (it's my standard) sb and bb call. I cover both, sb is villain,(310) I dont have any notes from previous history and he seems ok.

flop is T 8 8r, they check to me I bet 20.

sb calls, BB folds.

turn is 8, he checks, I check.

river is 8, he checks, I bet all in...

Re: bluff
 

I like it; representing an ace is very credible here. The only problem is if he actually has one.

EDIT: I doubt he has one so that's probably not a concern.

Re: bluff
 

[ QUOTE ]

river is 8, he checks, I bet all in...

[/ QUOTE ]

Is there a smaller bet that you could make?

I'm assuming you're betting all-in so you don't get re-bluffed... but you played your hand like you could very possibly have an ace, and I think he mucks a king to a PSB here too.

I think your folding equity increases with your bet size -- up to a point. Obviously, you should make the smallest bet that makes him fold everything but an ace... but there is that small chance that he does have an ace, and you may as well lose as little as possible when that happens...

...right?

Re: bluff
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

river is 8, he checks, I bet all in...

[/ QUOTE ]

Is there a smaller bet that you could make?

I'm assuming you're betting all-in so you don't get re-bluffed... but you played your hand like you could very possibly have an ace, and I think he mucks a king to a PSB here too.

I think your folding equity increases with your bet size -- up to a point. Obviously, you should make the smallest bet that makes him fold everything but an ace... but there is that small chance that he does have an ace, and you may as well lose as little as possible when that happens...

...right?

[/ QUOTE ]

yeah, i think you're right, i just thought if i potted it he would call with a king, and an all in he folds... everything [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

i didn't think he had an ace, checking an ace would be a good / tricky play that i dont think most 2/4 nlers are capable of.

sorta why i posted it though, this is hardly standard, and me doing stupid things from a weeklong+ break isn't good, so I wanted to see if i had validation.

seems so, but who knows, i just thought he folds almost everytime so the amount i bet (as long as he always folds K and worse) assured i would only be called by the nuts.

but who knows

Re: bluff
 

[ QUOTE ]

i didn't think he had an ace, checking an ace would be a good / tricky play that i dont think most 2/4 nlers are capable of.


[/ QUOTE ]

hmmm, think so?

from villain's perspective, I think it's much more likely that someone in position will bluff at this pot than it is that a king will call a bet.. so I check this all day.

I think that would be the standard tendency, but I might be overestimating the donks?

Re: bluff
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

i didn't think he had an ace, checking an ace would be a good / tricky play that i dont think most 2/4 nlers are capable of.


[/ QUOTE ]

hmmm, think so?

from villain's perspective, I think it's much more likely that someone in position will bluff at this pot than it is that a king will call a bet.. so I check this all day.

I think that would be the standard tendency, but I might be overestimating the donks?

[/ QUOTE ]

Thinking a little more, I think the 'advanced' part of the OOP opponent checking the river with the ace would be if he pieced together the following:

1) I recognize that I played my hand in such a way that I am unlikely to have an ace
2) I recognize that my opponent will realize that and try to steal this pot
3) Therefore, I check, he bets, and I eat his chips for breakfast

unfortunately, I think you could arrive at the conclusion to check through fewer levels of thinking... see what i mean?

Re: bluff
 

Someone correct me if I'm wrong, since I'm sorta in a rush, but i feel like responding anyways. Isn't this play +EV if Villian folds ~76/~278=x% of the time he needs to fold? If so, then I like this play b/c the only hand I can see Villian having here that will call this is A10. Based on the fact that he'll fold everything lower than an Ace kicker, this seems like a +EV play.

Re: bluff
 

I dont think you need to push here, he just instcalls with at, if you dont think he is capable of checking an ace here this is obviously good because you cant win by checking, I just think that there is a more optimal amount to bet other than ALLIN.

Re: bluff
 

[ QUOTE ]
I dont think you need to push here, he just instcalls with at, if you dont think he is capable of checking an ace here this is obviously good because you cant win by checking, I just think that there is a more optimal amount to bet other than ALLIN.

[/ QUOTE ]

then what should i bet?

Re: bluff
 

[ QUOTE ]
Someone correct me if I'm wrong, since I'm sorta in a rush, but i feel like responding anyways. Isn't this play +EV if Villian folds ~76/~278=x% of the time he needs to fold? If so, then I like this play b/c the only hand I can see Villian having here that will call this is A10. Based on the fact that he'll fold everything lower than an Ace kicker, this seems like a +EV play.

[/ QUOTE ]

I just reread my post and I meant 1-[that quantity]. Anyways, regardless, it looks like he has to fold about 75% of the time for this to be a +EV play. To those advocating for a small bet, I disagree. While this play (obviously) encompasses higher variance, a player really couldn't call with less than an ace based on the way hero played this hand. Moreover, it's a good play for metagame purposes (for obvious reasons I guess). Anyways, I like it.