If you never bluffed... - Page 2

Jimbo · #11 08-28-2005, 06:22 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think you need to take the limit your playing at into account. I play 3/6 live and rarely if ever bluff because it rarely if ever works. There is no reason to bluff as long as you are against opponents who will call your strong hands.

[/ QUOTE ]

So you are saying if you flopped an open-ended straight flush draw and were last to act you wouldn't bet? Odd if you ask me.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's not bluffing. That's betting with the best hand.

[/ QUOTE ]

Let me see if I understand you: The flop is 2 5 6 with two diamonds and you have the 3 4 of diamonds and you think you would be betting with the best hand? Where do you play?

The best draw perhaps, the best hand ? I don't think so!!!!!! Are you from Australia? You know where they redefine words to suit their own needs.

trumpman84 · #12 08-28-2005, 06:30 PM

I would be 100% certain I have the best hand at this point. Do you see why?

Jimbo · #13 08-28-2005, 07:32 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I would be 100% certain I have the best hand at this point. Do you see why?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes I see why, because you watch too much poker on TV. Just suppose the flop was as I stated above and the 2 and 5 were diamonds. Now suppose your oponnent had A6 of diamonds. How on earth could you think you have the best hand 100% of the time? you will be a 2 to 1 dog here and this is only one possible example. Of course it only takes one for you to be 100% incorrect now doesn't it?

Kaeser · #14 08-28-2005, 09:37 PM

I stand corrected, what I meant was that I almost never use a pure bluff in a low limit game.

I actually ran into a situation similar to the one you described. I was playing 3/6 at Muckleshoot. 6 players limped to me on the button with 7c8c. I raised and flopped an open-ended straight flush draw which I proceeded to bet the entire way.

Also there are some players even in low limits who consider themselves experts at getting away from a hand. When you are against them you can of course consider bluffing.

Kaeser · #15 08-28-2005, 09:40 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Online you could do very well never bluffing, because the whole reason for occasionally bluffing is not only to win pots but also to enforce the idea "Hey I bluff, you should call my bets cuz I could be bluffing"

Online your opponents change out so much nobody can notice your tendencies as much.

[/ QUOTE ]

They don't notice much at 2/4 live either. They didn't drive all the way to the casino to fold for 4 dollars on the river.

#16 08-28-2005, 10:17 PM

Actually, it appears that the value of bluffing is very limited in the early rounds. A complete mathematical analysis of pre-flop heads up poker, that is, hold-em with only the first round of betting, showed that there is very little mixed play necessary.

For more info:
http://www.archduke.demon.co.uk/

David04 · #17 08-28-2005, 10:44 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I would be 100% certain I have the best hand at this point. Do you see why?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes I see why, because you watch too much poker on TV. Just suppose the flop was as I stated above and the 2 and 5 were diamonds. Now suppose your oponnent had A6 of diamonds. How on earth could you think you have the best hand 100% of the time? you will be a 2 to 1 dog here and this is only one possible example. Of course it only takes one for you to be 100% incorrect now doesn't it?

[/ QUOTE ]
Let me see if I understand this. If you flop the nut straight, you will be an underdog to an opponent with 7 outs?

[ QUOTE ]
the best hand ? I don't think so!!!!!!

[/ QUOTE ]Yes,
34 will always be the best hand on a 2-5-6 flop, unless there are 3 of one suit.

PM me if you need any help with identifying the nuts.

GMan42 · #18 08-29-2005, 12:11 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think you need to take the limit your playing at into account. I play 3/6 live and rarely if ever bluff because it rarely if ever works. There is no reason to bluff as long as you are against opponents who will call your strong hands.

[/ QUOTE ]

So you are saying if you flopped an open-ended straight flush draw and were last to act you wouldn't bet? Odd if you ask me.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's not bluffing. That's betting with the best hand.

[/ QUOTE ]

Let me see if I understand you: The flop is 2 5 6 with two diamonds and you have the 3 4 of diamonds and you think you would be betting with the best hand? Where do you play?

The best draw perhaps, the best hand ? I don't think so!!!!!! Are you from Australia? You know where they redefine words to suit their own needs.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't understand what the argument is about here. With an OESF draw against a typical range of hands, you are, quite simply, a favorite to win the hand...therefore it's a value bet, not a bluff.

benkahuna · #19 08-29-2005, 12:58 AM

You're a favorite blindly going from flop to the river. If you're putting money in on the individual streets, you are not the favorite.

bernie · #20 08-29-2005, 01:16 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think you need to take the limit your playing at into account. I play 3/6 live and rarely if ever bluff because it rarely if ever works. There is no reason to bluff as long as you are against opponents who will call your strong hands.

[/ QUOTE ]

So you are saying if you flopped an open-ended straight flush draw and were last to act you wouldn't bet? Odd if you ask me.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's not a bluff and you know it. If someone bets, a bunch of callers in between, is your raise from this spot considered a bluff raise? No, it's not. Not saying betting when checked to can't have some of the benefits of of getting some to fold with better hands, but it's more a value bet than anything.

He's talking about bluffing with nothing at all. Like a missed draw on the river. Which you generally don't do against players who will call you with anything. There are many games like this. But there are also people on those games, even micros, that will fold to a bluff in certain spots. In some games, bluffing is more valuable than others.

b