Stopping Bluffs

[ike]

Short version of optimal bluffing frequency:
If you bluff such a percentage of the time that the odds against you bluffing are equal to the pot odds your opponent gets on your bet. So, in 10/20 bluff $20 into a $100 pot once for every 5 legitimate bets you make. The "adding outs" technique that Ed uses works as a good way to randomize your bluffs and make them with optimal frequency. This optimal frequency is not "optimal" in the sense that against real people bluffing this often will make you the most money. It is optimal in a game theory sense, i.e. it is impossible for your opponent to play well against you; even if your opponent knows exactly the probability of you bluffing both folding and calling are 0 EV. Against real people you can bluff either more or less than the "optimal" frequency depending on your opponent, essentially offering them the choice of a +EV play and a -EV play and hoping they will tend to choose the wrong one.
This is explained in much greater detail in Sklansky's Theory of Poker.

[elysium]

hi mr. skansky

it would have to be something like 1 in 6 times. he's bluffing too much, so i don't want him to bluff less frequently unless it is so infrequently that i achieve a higher ev over what he's currently giving me by bluffing too much. i fare slightly worse if i only get him to bluff 1 in 5 times. yes, it's still too seldom the 1 in 5, but whose to say that it's better than 1 in 3? it could be the same ev as 1 in 3, but then, why not just continue having him bluff 1 in 3? for me, 1 in 6 or even better, 1 in 7. otherwise, let him continue bluffing like he is.

[Sqred]

I'm sure I'm not up to this, but what the heck, I'll take a stab. I'm not sure I really care if his bluffing frequency is so high in this spot.

In fact if he can make a laydown to a bluff reraise here, my line on his tendencies can maybe create some possible resteal attempt oppt. If it is a large pot situation, having a good estimate of 2/3 bluffs is a big edge that I don't think I would want to change.

FJM

[Louie Landale]

If you really CAN intimidate him you'll need to get him to bluff far less often than he is now, somewhere near 6% of the time (half as often as he should), instead of the 33% he's bluffing now (3 times as often as he should).

It will take a shot gun to intimidate someone that much. He's bluffing far too much so you should intimidate him ..err.. encourage him into bluffing even more.

- Louie

[snakehead]

why would you revive a 4 month old thread that's already been beat to death?

sheesh

[chesspain]

[ QUOTE ]
So you are always forced to call and lose that last bet two out of three times.


[/ QUOTE ]

Since I assume that the final pot is usually significantly larger than 3BB, why would you want him to bluff less often?

[Bill C]

[ QUOTE ]
reacto ad absurdum or slippery slope or something like that.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's "reductio ad absurdam"

[AviD]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
reacto ad absurdum or slippery slope or something like that.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's "reductio ad absurdam"

[/ QUOTE ]

It's important you dug out and resurfaced this thread simply to point out this mistake. Our Latin certainly needs more work than our poker! [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[scrub]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
reacto ad absurdum or slippery slope or something like that.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's "reductio ad absurdam"

[/ QUOTE ]

It's important you dug out and resurfaced this thread simply to point out this mistake. Our Latin certainly needs more work than our poker! [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

There have been a few posts recently from people who clearly didn't understand the concepts in this thread. Lil's FW 20/40 with AT is the first that comes to mind.

scrub