Calling bluffs revisited

[drewjustdrew]

[ QUOTE ]
something no one has mentioned is that if he IS bluffing, you want to encourage him to do so more later in the session, rather than pick it off in this particular situation...



[/ QUOTE ]

From the ss digest, I read the above quote and don't think it was explored fully. Here was the original thread for context.

I can see why it would make sense in a no-limit game where you can get more money later, but the bluff is only good for one bet in the hand in limit, not the entire pot. It comes down to how good you are at reading bluffs and bluff percentages and whether the pot warrants your estimations. It would be better to pick off as many bluffs as possible because:

1. Bluffers generally don't stop bluffing, maybe they slow down, but they can't help from starting up again.

2. Your loose image may encourage straightforward play which is generally desirable. This is somewhat contradictory to 1, but disregarding the initial bluffer, if the rest of the table decides against taking shots, that is a very good thing.

[ArturiusX]

HEFAP goes into this in its shorthanded section, saying if a crazy can fold you 20% of the time with $100 bet into a $500 pot, he's making money whether we can own him those times we call or not.

[SeaEagle]

I completely agree.

Most of the time I want the table to think that I'll call them down with middling hands. I think this image has far more value than encouraging someone to bluff more.

[drewjustdrew]

the particular point in the session the quote in the OP was referring to was the very first hand played by the Hero. I think this is especially the right time to pick off a bluff with a weakish hand. First impressions are strong.