[philnewall]

Sklansky has shown us that there is a relationship between out opponent's bluffing frequency in relation to the optimum level and whether to stop/induce bluffs. For example, against a frequent bluffer (one who bluffs with greater than optimum frequency) we would induce bluffs in order to exaggerate this mistake.

There is also a relationship between how our opponent bluffs and the the size of the pot that we should aim to create. In limit holdem, a large pot heads up will result in a relatively high optimum bluffing frequency, so it means that the frequent bluffer will be more or less playing correctly (of course the inverse of this is that in a small pot the optimum bluffing frequency is lower). In order to exagerrate his mistake of veering far away from the optimum level, we must create a small pot. This can be inutitavely grasped from the need to induce bluffs against such a player, although it goes beyond that as it applies to every street before the river, while inducing and stopping bluffs does not generally apply preflop while being applicable to
river play.

Here is an example from a recent extended heads up limit holdem game I played against Chris P. His initial style of play was one of almost relentless (semi)bluffing on every street, while mine was of making frequent marginal raises, such as capping a hand like A2o after raising from the small blind and getting 3-bet, aswell as similar raises postflop, such as capping a weak open-ended straight draw on the flop. The trouble with my play was that I was creating a very large pot, which suited Chris' style of bluffing. I was not initally aware of this however, and I ended up folding a number of winning hands, which because the pots were large was a suitably large mistake. In a £.10/.20 game this caused me to lose over £5 during our first 1 and a half hour stretch of live play.

After that first session, I realised that I had made him play unwittingly accurate, and my new strategy was to create a small pot. Examples of this included just calling his
frequent preflop raises from my big blind with marginal hands such as Q5s, saving my reraises for quality high cards and pairs, and extending my passive play postflop with bluff-catching type hands, however, because he was capable of capping the flop and turn on something like a flush draw; whenever I flopped a strong hand, such as top pair I would engage a raising war with him and punish his excessive (semi)bluffing. Because the pots were now smaller, his bluffing frequency was now way above optimum and I succeeded in winning all my money back plus some over the next week of sporadic play. My own bluffing frequency was much lower, and
most of my bluffing consisted of after flat calling his raise from the small blind checking and value raising/bluff raising in an appropriate ratio for the pot size.

Against someone who bluffed less than optimum, you would play oppositely, and make those marginal value bets and semi-bluffs in order to increase the size of the pot and exaggerate his mistake of bluffing infrequently. Also, when such a player gives a certain amount of action you will be able to rule out the possibility of a bluff
and play your hand accordingly.

In conclusion against a higher/lower bluffing frequency than optimum we should aim to create a small/large pot. Of course the optimum level for each situation differs, but this applies when considering your opponent's metagame.