Stopping Bluffs

[ike]

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.

[Ed S.]

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.

[DcifrThs]

[ 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

[nykenny]

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...

[mike l.]

"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.

[rory]

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

[TXTiger]

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%.

[ML4L]

[ 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

[ML4L]

[ 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

[ML4L]

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