Catching Bluffers

I found this little quote in Sklansky's book "Poker Gaming and Life" and is a little confuse in what it means so I hope someone can give me some help on this. "There is a natural tendency to call the aggressive player and fold aganist the tight player when each bets on the end, but both strategy might be wrong. If the aggressive player will bet just as many "bust-outs" as the tight player, his ratio of bluffs to legitimate hands is actually lower than the ratio for the tight player. Thus with a mediocre hand that is only good as a 'bluff catcher', you would be more apt to call the tight player then the aggressive one." I find this quote kind of confusing so hope some of you can help me out thanks

[OrianasDaad]

[ QUOTE ]
will bet just as many "bust-outs" as the tight player

[/ QUOTE ]

Two players, both will bet 5 rivers per 100 hands.
Tight player bets 10 rivers overall.
Loose player bets 30 rivers overall.

Tight player is bluffing 50% of the time (5/10)
Loose player is bluffing 17% of the time (5/30)

Given these conditions, you should call more often against the tight player than the loose player.

Notice that if the tight player bluffs only twice to the loose players' five times, then it's still more likely that the tight player is bluffing.

Caveat: Tight players make good hands more often, and you'll never know exactly how often people bluff.

If you say that: Tight players make good hands more often, and you'll never know exactly how often people bluff. Then how revelent or useful is this piece of advice?

[benkahuna]

I think I'm missing something here, perhaps context, because the explanations on why to call a player on the end relative to tightness or aggressiveness don't make sense.

I see no reason why an aggressive player would be bluffing less on the river so that I should call them less. This situations sounds like the only thing I can beat is a bluff.

Is Sklansky just saying that apparently tight players have a greater tendency to bluff on the river?

Is he perhaps talking about tight aggressive players that play fewer hands, but play them more aggressively so a river bluff is more likely?

[OrianasDaad]

From what I can tell many authors equate the terms "loose" and "aggressive". HoH is a good example of this.

From a theoretical standpoint, a tight player "should" be bluffing with a greater frequency on the river than an aggressive/loose player, if they are bluffing the same number of hands as they aggressive/loose player.

This theoretical condition isn't often matched in the real world. Tight players (especially online) are going to bluff with a signifigantly lower frequency than loose players. It's merely an interesting theoretical aside that Sklansky points out, I believe, that shows you some interesting ways to look at the game.

Then my question becomes is this theory only something to be think about. Or can this strategy or theory really apply to actual playing situation?

[AaronBrown]

I define tight as putting few dollars in the pot, loose as putting a lot of dollars in the pot.

I define aggressive as doing lots of raising and folding, passive as doing a lot of calling.

Any of the four combinations are possible. Bad players tend to be loose and passive, then they either get tired of losing or read a book and become tight and passive. That slows down their losing, but it can't win. A few players learn to be aggressive, some prefer to play tight, some loose; either can win but the best is to be able to adapt your degree of tightness to the table.

If you accept these definitions, and I know a lot of people don't, then only aggressive players bluff since it requires raising and frequently folding. Of course, a passive player might go against type for a hand, but he's probably not going to make a convincing job of it. You have to bluff with some regularity to get good at it.

Therefore, if I can't beat anything but a bluff, and my opponent hasn't given any obvious sign of a bluff, I'm only calling if my opponent is aggressive.

I agree a tight player in theory should bluff more. His game is oriented to gaining maximum value on his good hands, he has to bluff to get anyone to ever call him. A loose player can win by picking up lots of blinds and small pots, and has no trouble getting people to call him. There's no point in paying to advertise when people come to your store for nothing.

I think that's useful in practice. Most aggressive players are good enough to bluff rationally. However, it's always better to know your players rather than to guess based on types. I know good loose aggressive players who bluff a lot, and good tight aggressive players who don't.

[benkahuna]

Thank you. I see what you're saying now.

Why would we assume that a tight player bluffs the same number of hands?

[PokrLikeItsProse]

Having not read it, I don't know the context within which Sklansky is writing.

The way I understand poker, the tight player will have either a very strong hand or absolutely nothing for a river bet. The loose player could have the nuts, could be bluffing, could have a great many different hands in between.

With a hand whose only value is bluff-catching, you have a very mediocre holding, perhaps something as weak as ace-high in Texas hold em. An aggressive player may (wrongly) bet too many hands on the end from the perspective of being a bad value bet or may bet something like bottom pair, thinking that he is bluffing when he actually has the best hand vs. your ace-high.

[Xhad]

[ QUOTE ]
With a hand whose only value is bluff-catching, you have a very mediocre holding, perhaps something as weak as ace-high in Texas hold em. An aggressive player may (wrongly) bet too many hands on the end from the perspective of being a bad value bet or may bet something like bottom pair, thinking that he is bluffing when he actually has the best hand vs. your ace-high.

[/ QUOTE ]

The aggressive player may also actually be playing well by betting more than the weak-tight player. I know tight players who won't value bet a set if the board comes runner-runner flush. Yesterday I witnessed someone not bet 82o (big blind) on a board of 22J59 because she was convinced the person who called her down "had" to have the other deuce. A lot of excessively tight players won't value bet top pair, mediocre kicker, or an overpair even in situations where it is clearly correct to do so, where an aggressive player would.