Stopping Bluffs

[David Sklansky]

This is a simple question if you can do the math. So I ask the math guys to not answer it. Plus I will be a bit vague numerically to keep things to estimates.

But this is an important question and I want to see how close you instictive types will get to the right answer by the seat of your pants.

You have an opponent who you play with regularly who bluffs alot on the river when the pot is pretty big and he is headsup with you. You estimate that one out of three of his river bets are bluffs. So you are always forced to call and lose that last bet two out of three times.

You think you have the ability to intimidate him into bluffing less often. It doesn't matter how. 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?

[Loci]

Okay, a few assumptions before I answer- 1. This is limit, not pot or no limit; 2. I will beat him on half of the final called hands.

With the belief that there are 12 BB in the pot, if I keep him to bluffing 1/6 (16/17%) by my tactics, then I can make the appropriate calls to turn a profit.

[Nate tha' Great]

I've always thought of the right number as 20%. I could do the math, but I won't.

[ACPlayer]

If I know he is bluffing excessively why would I want to intimidate him into bluffing less? That would move him closer to the appropriate bluffing frequency.

What am I missing?

[goofball]

i agree. if he bluffs 1 out of 3 times it's an easy call on most heads up rivers if the pot has anything in it at all. until you see his bluffing frequency change why not just call him 100% of the time the pot has more than 3 BB's in it(and you can beat a bluff) and 0% of the time it has less?

[1800GAMBLER]

If the pot is 'pretty big' and you want to make smart laydowns he has to bluff with 'pretty low' frequency. It's just totally dependant on the pot size.

[DcifrThs]

ok, then...no math...

my off the cuff feeling is that it doesn't need to be a huge change, but just enough to have the desired effect.

so without any math i'd say if you could drop the odds against a bluff to 4:1 you'd be in good shape. in your percentage terms: 20%.

-Barron

[DcifrThs]

yea but the idea is to get a general idea and venture a guess based on what you think...we could all do the math and get the answer but david requests we NOT do that.

so buck up and state an answer like the rest of us. [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]

-Barron

[chief444]

Pretty sure this is all dependent on the pot amount and therefore I don't believe there is any set % of the time anyone can come up with...correct? Sometimes (with a very small pot) the opponent bluffing 1/3 times will be correct (for the opponent). Normally it will be way too often to bluff.

I didn't actually do the math but I think the answer would be 1/3*BB/pot or less. If this is off I think the actual math will come out to a similar equation with a set % x BB amount / pot size.

Basically the opponent bluffing way too much is a good thing and for the situation to improve the opponent would have to bluff way too little (probably close to never with decent sized pots) to have the situation improved.

This assumes that every time you call the bet when the opponent is not bluffing you lose (as I read it). Obviously this will not always be the case so in actuality I wouldn't do anything to discourage someone bluffing this frequently.

[1800GAMBLER]

I wont answer since i'd have to answer in terms of p for pot and the answer would be a little math equation. I can't explain it any other way and when i think about it that's how i think about it. This all depends on if the only way you can win the pot is by him bluffing, which isn't stated. To put it as a percentage without pot size i'd say ~12%