"You must bluff" Fallacy

[DavidC]

A few times I've been told that I have to bet a river because I can only win by bluffing.

While both of these facts may be true, they don't necessarily connect with eachother.

Do you see why?

[moot]

Yes.

As in all poker decisions, you weigh the odds.

If you decide that you can only win by bluffing and you estimate that there is a 10% chance your bluff will work, the pot better have at least 9 big bets already in it. And you probably want a decent overlay, since this is a very rough guess.

You must simply consider whether the action is positive or negative expected value. You don't bluff because it's the only way you can win. You bluff because you feel that it is +EV. We don't care about the pot so much as we care about the choices in relation to that pot.

I mean, this really is nothing new and I think your post is somewhat pointless. [b]DO YOU SEE WHY?[b]

[DavidC]

[ QUOTE ]
Yes.

As in all poker decisions, you weigh the odds.

If you decide that you can only win by bluffing and you estimate that there is a 10% chance your bluff will work, the pot better have at least 9 big bets already in it. And you probably want a decent overlay, since this is a very rough guess.

You must simply consider whether the action is positive or negative expected value. You don't bluff because it's the only way you can win. You bluff because you feel that it is +EV. We don't care about the pot so much as we care about the choices in relation to that pot.

I mean, this really is nothing new and I think your post is somewhat pointless. [b]DO YOU SEE WHY?

[/ QUOTE ]

Firstly, thanks for writing this all out.

Secondly, I felt it was necessary, because I'd been getting that advice with that reasoning (particularly in the SSPLNLHE forum).

Edit: I have no idea why my text is bold.

[kapw7]

This is not maybe so relevant for the micros. But according to the game theory you have to bluff randomly for optimum play. The frequency of bluffing is defined by the pot odds and not when to bluff. See TOP for better discussion.

[DavidC]

[ QUOTE ]
This is not maybe so relevant for the micros. But according to the game theory you have to bluff randomly for optimum play. The frequency of bluffing is defined by the pot odds and not when to bluff. See TOP for better discussion.

[/ QUOTE ]

There's exceptions to this, too. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[topspin]

[ QUOTE ]
This is not maybe so relevant for the micros. But according to the game theory you have to bluff randomly for optimum play. The frequency of bluffing is defined by the pot odds and not when to bluff. See TOP for better discussion.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're talking about Nash equilibria, and the idea only applies when you have opponents who are adjusting their play based on your play. You will rarely see this at the micros, so you're right that this doesn't really apply to us.

[karitek]

[ QUOTE ]
This is not maybe so relevant for the micros. But according to the game theory you have to bluff randomly for optimum play.

[/ QUOTE ]

That only applies when you think your oponents have an edge and are more thinking than you. You use game theory to remove that edge. If you randomize your bluffing, they can't predict it. I loved that part of TOP...although I don't feel like I will be using it for ages.

TOP has an amazing section on bluffing. Everyone should read it. I also really like Bob Ciaffone's coverage of bluffing in Improve Your Poker. It gives a lot of practical examples of when it's best to bluff, and when people most likely are. A lot of it is common sense, but he helps solidify it.

[MrEngenic]

[ QUOTE ]
This is not maybe so relevant for the micros. But according to the game theory you have to bluff randomly for optimum play. The frequency of bluffing is defined by the pot odds and not when to bluff. See TOP for better discussion.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is optimum if your opponent is better than you or just as good as you at estimating if you are bluffing or not. At the micros, you are better off to estimate how likely your opponent is to fold than using game theory. They aren't using game theory to decide when to look you up.

[Bodhi]

[ QUOTE ]
Do you see why?

[/ QUOTE ]

LOL! [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

Why does everyone borrow this phrase when they're trying to sound cool like Sklansky and Malmouth?

[Bodhi]

[ QUOTE ]
Edit: I have no idea why my text is bold.

[/ QUOTE ]

Because when people write "do you see why?" here at 2+2, they always come off sounding like a charlatan or a coxcomb. I don't think you are either of these, so please stop using that phrase.