Bluffing on the River (from a Party $2/4 Hand)

[colgin]

This $2/4 Party hand made me think about some of the ideas pertaining to bluffing on the river as presented in Theory of Poker and elsewhere. I have been struggling with the ideas of optimal bluffing strategy and was hoping that this hand could serve as a starting point for discussion.

I am in MP with Q [img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img]Q [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img]. It is folded to me, I raise and all fold to the BB who calls.

Flop: T [img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img]4 [img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img]3 [img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img]

BB checks, I bet and BB calls.

Turn: 2 [img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] [T [img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img]4 [img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img]3 [img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img]]

BB checks, I bet and BB calls.

River: K [img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] (Ugh!) [2 [img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] T [img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img]4 [img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img]3 [img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img]]

BB bets, I call.

The K [img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] is, of course, an awful card for me. Certainly if this pot is multiway and there is a bet and raise in front of me I throw it away. I probably wouldn't even overcall to a bet and a call. But heads up I am getting 25:4 on my call and I think the odds that my opponent are bluffing make it worth a call.

My opponent showed 3 [img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img]6 [img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img] and MHIG.

I almost never chat other than to say NH, VNH or TY. Here, I said "Nice bluff try; that was a real scare card for me." My opponent replied "It was worth a shot" or something to that effect.

My thought here is that I wanted him (or others watching) to bluff in those situations. I know I am going to call every time in that situation and will end up paying off a better hand a fair amount. So, I want to catch some bluffs in the process as well. I didn't want my opponent thinking "Oh well, that bluff didn't work better not try it again." I have a few questions relating to this hand:

1. Was my call correct? The pot was fairly large, but not enormous. Any King or diamond beats me and there is no chance of my opponent having improved on the river but still having the second best hand (as could have been the case if say the J [img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] had fallen). If the K [img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] had helped him then I am beat. Assuming I put the BB on a completely random hand I am still probably beat at least 1/2 the time given the 12 cards he/she could hold that would now best me. Plus, what are the hands that would cause the BB to chase to the river -- a flush draw or overcards like AK. So I could win here well less than 50% of the time.

2. Assuming my call was OK, was this a good bluff attempt, or potentially a good bluff, by my opponent. If he knew I would call every time then he should never bluff. If I knew he was incapable of bluffing I should always fold here. What if my opponent knows I am capable of making tough folds; i.e., I may very well call here but a certain percentage of the time I might fold. Even though I called here he is getting the benefit (which is part of the point of bluffing) that I will pay off next time in the same or similar situation when he has a good hand. Is there an optimal bluffing strategy for my opponent? Since the pot is basically laying me 6:1 odds after his bet should he be bluffing (in a randomized way) 1 out of 7 times?

3. Was my instinct to encourage more bluffs in this type of situation correct? Without knowing more about this particular opponent am I in a position to know if I really want him to bluff more or less. Or does my earlier argument that I know that I will always call hold. (Arguably my comment could backfire anyway. An observant player might note that I was clearly aware of the possibility of bluffing but called anyway. Thus, a player would know not to bluff against me in such situations but would know that they would get paid off with a legitimate hand on the river.)

I know this is a lot for one post but I hope that this will spark some discussion on the topic of bluffing.

Thanks in advance.

Colgin

[Poker21]

I've read Sklansky's ''Theory of Poker'' and I'm familiar with the chapters on Game Theory and Bluffing Frequency. First off let me say I have the utmost respect for David Sklansky as an authority on poker. The problem with his Game Theory example is that its simply unrealistic in an actual ring game or tournament game. Your opponents hands aren't fixed like his Razz illistration they are random just like your bluff cards would be. When your random bluff card flops and it makes their random pair a set not only does it cost you money it forces you to reveale your bluff to the table.

In a game like limit hold'em trying to incorperate an optimal bluffing frequency could be very costly. Particularly if youre in with a few tough players who may have already calculated the pot odds they'll get if they call you to the river. And will do just that.

If there is anything close to an optimal bluffing frequency in any form of poker I would think it would be in a no-limit form of poker where the pot odds can be more liberally manipulated.

I believe one of the biggest differences that seperate average poker players from good poker players is that average poker players look too hard for or try too hard to create an opportunity to make a bluff and steal a pot.

Good poker players wait for the opportunity to steal a pot. They do this two ways. First and foremost they create a table image by playing solid poker. Buy solid I mean playing good hands and playing aggressive once they've entered a pot. People notice this type of play, mainly because it gets the money and players watch where the money is going.

Secondly good players sense fear in their opponents. This is why good players can play more hands than weaker players and come out on top. When they play a weak hand and blanks flop they can fire a barrel and usually pull the pot. Because they have a good idea of what their opponents think of them and their game.

If you play solid your bluffing opportunities will come. Let them.

[daryn]

this random bluffing using game theory was only to be used against the pros if i remember correctly. either that or you're talking about calculating the pot odds on a bluff and bluffing at that exact frequency.. now that is a good play!

[Henke]

1. You have three options, folding, calling or raising. If you raise, he may reraise (which you won't like), if he indeed has the flush. If he's on a pure bluff, he's very likely to fold if you raise. So raising is pretty much out of the question here. If you should call or fold then depends on if you think your opponent would bluff more than 14% in this case. If you don't have a good read, then calling will usually be much less of an error than folding, so I would say that calling is good.

2. In the lower limits, I've found that flushes really scare people. If you'll get away with bluffing more than the pot-odds warrant really depends alot on your image. If you aren't bluffing very much and/or have a strong, tight image and you are winning, it's certainly worth bluffing in this kind of situation.

You're asking wether there is an optimal bluffing frequency, and the answer is yes. However, what the optimal bluffing-frequency is depends in part of what you define as optimal. A game-theoretic definition of optimal means that you will "allways" have a positive EV, and your opponent can only limit his losses by calling you with an optimal frequency. However, it isn't the optimal approach if your goal is to maximize EV. Then it comes down to knowing your opponent, and using a strategy that exploits their flaws.

3. If you allways call, you want your opponents to bluff as much as possible. Then you should do whatever you can to give the impression that you can get bluffed of a legitimate hand. However, allways calling is far from correct, in part because you are giving your opponents implied odds, which might make calling your flop-bet without having enough odds to do so correct (since you will pay them off if they make their hand).

Just my two cents. Flame away!

[colgin]

Thanks to everyone who responded. I was kind of interested in the game theory approach to this even though I felt comfortable with my real world analysis based on pot odds and what I thought the odds that a typical Party player would be bluffing here. The following link has a discussion of the game theory aspects of bluffing and a table showing optimal bluffing strategy for their hypo. I don't know exactly how they computed their table but I guess that is the type of analysis I was thinking of when I first posted. They do discuss the concept of optimal bluffing (per game theory) versus maximal bluffing (a point that Henke mentions in his response in this thread; TOP may also discuss this). Anyway thanks for the input. Here is the link:

http://www.cs.ualberta.ca/~darse/msc-essay/node23.html

[drudman]

I think it's a good bluff for him simply because he doesn't know that YOU know that you are probably getting pot odds to call. But Daryn is right about not following Sklansky's theories against the normal party 2/4 clods.