Moneymaker...

[SmileyEH]

Ace high is definetely good enough of the time. If you fold ace high to a turn raise HU you are going to be run over.

-SmileyEH

[A_C_Slater]

[ QUOTE ]
Ace high is definetely good enough of the time. If you fold ace high to a turn raise HU you are going to be run over.

-SmileyEH

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not questioning the turn call, I'm questioning the
unimproved river call.

[AngryCola]

... held the ace of clubs. He would only have to be right about ace high still being good around 10% of the time. If my opponent bluffed more than is correct, I would say this was an easy call. That is assuming he did have ace high, of course. [img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img]

[A_C_Slater]

Even bad players who tend to have a romanticized notion
of bluffing don't check raise on the turn with a ragged
looking board like that, unless they have at least SOMETHING.

[AngryCola]

[ QUOTE ]
Even bad players who tend to have a romanticized notion of bluffing don't check raise on the turn with a ragged looking board like that, unless they have at least SOMETHING.

[/ QUOTE ]

In the Theory of Poker, Sklansky states that sometimes the only weakness he can detect in an opponent is that he will never check-raise bluff.

I agree with that 100%
If you never check-raise bluff then you are simply giving away WAYYY too much information. If I know that then so do most of the players at that limit.

By the way, that board in a short handed game is the perfect time for a bluff. Even more so in a heads up pot with some dead money in it. [img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img]

[eastbay]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
is currently putting a beating down on the $100/$200 Stars table

[/ QUOTE ]

You cant say hes beating down on the game when none of the regulars are there.

[/ QUOTE ]

I can't? I said he's putting a beating down on the table, not "the game", whatever that means.

eastbay

[A_C_Slater]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Even bad players who tend to have a romanticized notion of bluffing don't check raise on the turn with a ragged looking board like that, unless they have at least SOMETHING.

[/ QUOTE ]

In the Theory of Poker, Sklansky states that sometimes the only weakness he can detect in an opponent is that he will never check-raise bluff.

I agree with that 100%
If you never check-rasie bluff then you are simply giving away WAYYY too much information. If I know that then so do most of the players at that limit.

By the way, that board in a short handed game is the perfect time for a bluff. Even more so in a heads up pot with some dead money in it. [img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

Hmmmm, that makes some sense. I haven't read that book.
I 've read SSHE and HPFAP and figured I didn't need too, but
after seeing this post, it makes me wonder. Although, that
rule could only apply to a game where you play with the
same people day in and day out. I don't think you have to
show people whom you seldom play with in a online enviroment
that you're a "check raise total bluffer". As they might
not take notice anyway.

Do you not agree?
By the way I don't think i've EVER check raised total bluffed in a limit game, live or online.

Is this a common move in your arsenal when the board is
full of rags?

[AngryCola]

The board isn't exactly rags. It is paired and there are 3 clubs. The way the hand was played also make it a great time to try a bluff on the turn, and once you bluff on the turn you almost always have to fire again at the river. Money knows this. I don't think he was very confident of his hand being best after calling the turn bet, but he knew he still had outs.

As for not playing against the same players as often online:
The higher limit players are very familiar with most of their opposition. Obviously, the reason for that is there are far fewer of them at the higher limits.

I don't know how often Money plays those limits, or if he knows that player very well. But he still knows that's a great spot for his opponent to try and bluff him. The chance the other player is bluffing combined with the size of the pot make it worth the river call. After all the cards were out he only need be right around 10% of the time to call the last bet.

As for the TOP, by Sklanksky:
I think you are probably ready to give it a read. After reading the 2 books that you mentioned, now would be a good time to dig a little deeper into the concepts that apply to all poker games. [img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img]

[A_C_Slater]

What i'm curious to know though is if YOU ever PERSONALLY
check raise bluff in a full ring game heads up? I can
understand at a short handed table, but a full table?

I know that this moneymaker game is shorthanded. I am
just wondering if what Sklansky says in TOP applys to
heads up play in a full ring game

[AngryCola]

[ QUOTE ]
What i'm curious to know though is if YOU ever PERSONALLY
check raise bluff in a full ring game heads up? I can
understand at a short handed table, but a full table?

I know that this moneymaker game is shorthanded. I am
just wondering if what Sklansky says in TOP applys to
heads up play in a full ring game

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, of course it does. I just pointed out that it was shorthanded because that increases the frequency of bluffing a bit. That doesn't matter though, because if the hand was played in the same manner at a full table there really wouldn't be much difference.

(everyone folds to button, button raises, both blinds call)

Once this action has taken place, the fact that it is a full table really doesn't have much bearing on the hand, IMHO. The only difference that I see is the possible bluffer might view his chances of getting you out of the pot to be lower than in a shorthanded situation. Maybe that pyschology would cause you to think that he wouldn't be bluffing you here, because you think that he thinks that he couldn't get away with it!

That is all very theoretical, however. It really depends on a lot of factors. Most bluffing situation analysis has to read "It depends..." somewhere along the way..

I would definitely have to reduce my estimate of an opponent bluffing at a full table if the action had developed differently. Even still, that just reduces them and by no means eliminates them. That is unless you are up against a player who never check-raise bluffs. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

That snip of TOP certainly applies to any heads up pot. A player is far more likely to try and bluff one opponent than many. That's why multiway pots are generally considered "protected pots".

Having said all this, it's important to note that like any bluff you have to know when and how sparingly to use the check-raise bluff. It should only be used just often enough to where people generally have to pay you off on your good hands.

As to your question of whether I would use this play. I think it's pretty obvious that I have used and and will use it when I need to. But the truth is that most of us on these forums are by no means high limit players.

Value bets are king in our arena. [img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img]