I disagree with #33,34, and 35 in TPFAP

[jwvdcw]

One mistake that I believe that a lot of authors make is that they overestimate the skill of the opponents. While many pros/authors are constantly facing top competition, most people reading the books are not facing as great competition. As a result, it is harder to bluff. Moreover, the semi-bluff is also less likely to work.

I believe that in these exmaples, there is virtually no chance of winning the pot on a bluff. I believe that a semi-bluff, by definition, needs to have a chance to win on a bluff in order to be a successful move. I particularly disagree with example 35. With a raiser a 3 other callers, do you really think that there is no ace out there? Why are you then going to bet out with mid pair, poor kicker?

This is especially true in a tournament where you want to minimize gambles. The author doesn't note what stage the tournament is at, but the later it is, the worse i think these moves are. The author notes that in examples 33 and 34 that you havea backdoor flush draw. I think that this is terrible reasoning. Now, you might have to throw away even more bets if your draw maintains itself on 4th street! In a tournament, especially, I don't want to put myself in a situation where I'm chasing longshot draws.

I guess my question would be if you get called and your hand remains unimproved(a very likely scenario imo), then what? If you check, you're likely to get bet into on 4th street and then you must fold, so do you continue to bluff?? This play on the flop puts you in a very tough situation imo.

[jwvdcw]

bump...I guess nobody here can ever argue with Slansky?

[bingledork]

Post the actual scenario and maybe you'll get more responses.

In general, I think we can all agree that it's harder to bluff a bad player, in general. But I know some bad players that I bluff a lot, because they fold a lot. So it depends.

[jwvdcw]

[ QUOTE ]
Post the actual scenario and maybe you'll get more responses.


[/ QUOTE ]

I wasn't sure if I was allowed to quote a large portion of a 2+2 book here since its giving it away for free and might discourage people to buy it instead. If nobody objects, I'll post the exact questions that Slansky has and his answers, which I disagree with.

[Mason Malmuth]

Hi jwvdcw:

It's best not to post the complete questions. You should be able to summarize what your disagreements are.

best wishes,
Mason

[MicroBob]

[ QUOTE ]
I believe that a semi-bluff, by definition, needs to have a chance to win on a bluff in order to be a successful move.

[/ QUOTE ]

i employ this tactic a lot.
works in online low buy-in MTT's. and is especially useful in SNG's. i play 10+1 to 30+3 SNG's so these players aren't exactly the cream of the crop.

i may go back to TPFAP and see what i think of the examples you disagreed with.

but i have taken many a pot by betting strong on my straight or flush-draw or lower pair.
i have even taken pots with the nut no-pair....example...i raise a field of limpers with KQs on the button. flop comes A93r....everyone checks...i may try to take it then...but if i check again and the turn brings a rag or another A AND it gets checked around again then i think the chances of taking it are decent.

[MicroBob]

[ QUOTE ]
I wasn't sure if I was allowed to quote a large portion of a 2+2 book here

[/ QUOTE ]


i have copied brief portions of 2+2 books in posts before...but also had the same concern.
even though it wasn't my place to make a decision on this...i thought that the portion i was quoting was small enough not to 'give away' the rest of the book....and was frequently good enough where it may actually entice some of those reading my post to purchase their books.

i know that some of the issues that were discussed directly from TPFAP and GTAOT persuaded me to buy those books.
that's why i have no qualms with saying things like 'hey...this bit on SD is covered in detail in GTAOT....for example, MM says on page XX "blah blah blah".'
and then i usually end my post with...'if this is something that interests you' or 'if you really want to learn more about SD....then get GTAOT.'


anyway....i understand your trepidation at posting larger passages and also agree with mason that you should be able to briefly express your concerns/questions if a specific idea and shouldn't need to quote THAT much of the book.

[jwvdcw]

Sorry, I forgot about this thread for a few days. OK, so heres a brief paraphrase of the examples:

All of these involve limit hold em tourneys. You are an average stack and it is midway through, so you aren't in danger of getting out, but the blinds are somewhat high.

33.3 limpers before you, you call from SB with 9d-10d. Flop comes Ad-7h-6s.

34.EP raises, 3 people before you call his raise, you call from BB with 9d-10d. Flop comes Ad-7h-6s

35.Same situation as 34: EP raises, 3 call, you call from BB with 9d-10d. Flop comes Ad-9h-2c.

In every case, he advises you to bet out. I especially disagree with #35, but I disagree with all of them.

[MicroBob]

i might bet at it on 35 to see where i stand. but remember, it was raised before you and then cold-called by a couple players...the chances that someone has an ace are fairly high.

i definitely wouldn't stay in on hds 33 and 34. there would likely be a better opportunity down the road to increase my stack.

[Rounder 24/7]

I totally agree with no.33 ... Betting out here I can understand. Pot hasn't been raised preflop therefore perfectly reasonable for players to put u on an Ace weak kicker calling from the blind. The bet also gets hands like KT/QT, maybe even J9 to fold therefore if u hit a T/9 on the turn you wont have to worry about kicker trouble as much. So ultimately u are representing the Ace but have 10 outs to hit if you get called. 4 eights for gutshot and the remaining 3 nines, 3 tens. Plus u have a 3 flush for added help.

i like the hand played this way