Big semi-bluff vs. known overpair

[cero_z]

Hi Post-Oak,

I don't agree with your characterization of this guy's play at all, though I do think he played this one badly on the turn (and the river, of course). However, keep in mind that I don't KNOW he had an overpair; he could've had the Ace-high flush draw, and been acting when agonizing on the river. My strong read of KK was based on body language, and the previous hands I'd seen him play.

But, this was not a weak player. He was "overly solid," which will get the money every day and twice on Sunday in that 5-5 game. He was choosing to play only quality hands, despite the fact that he could outplay everyone at the table except me, post-flop. I chose to play every hand. So, if he were to raise it up front, he would have a hard time getting action, especially given the fact that he'd just folded for the better part of an hour. He limped, hoping someone else would raise. And his flop bet didn't get raised, I'll venture, because nobody had anything as good as top pair.

He was winning about 1500 at the start of the hand, and that also impacted my decision to bluff him for all his chips. If he was wrong, he'd have to rebuild that good win, which takes forever with his style.

[cero_z]

Hi turnipmonster, Shaun, and Utah,

You all made very good points. I like Shaun's point about reinforcing the "non-bluff" in the big pot, by not showing.

PO and turnip,

I agree that my bet on the river was really questionable. I based it entirely on my read of his physical behavior, and as I said, sometimes that makes me look really stupid. It worked this time.

turnip wrote,

[ QUOTE ]
it seems like another 500 might have done the trick [on the river]

[/ QUOTE ]

I read his call on the turn as hoping to slow me down, or make me abandon betting altogether, so I think he would've called a smaller bet. If I'd had the flush, I would've probably bet 500 on the end, given his tells. At least I hope I would've had the sense to go with my read, and not bet it all, once the fear of losing was eliminated.

[fsuplayer]

The stacks are 400xBB. There are no bad hands.

i love deep-stackedness....makes the game fun.

<------------------------------

[Louie Landale]

I can say without hesitation that bluffing this sort of player is a LOT more profitable than getting him to call when you've got near the nuts and he's got the real goods. That situation doesn't come up very often, but villian with an overpair when there is some hint of a scare card is VERY common. You'll get to bluff a fair number of small pots and 5-6 big pots before you get him to commit a bunch of chips drawing slim.

"consistent" isn't the same thing as "same", it means "appropriate for". If you artificially discourage a bet (say by threatening with chips), then its inconsistent to call. I see that a lot: folks "check blind" on the river with a drawing hand. Why discourage a bet then?

- Louie