IMHO Moe has a very valid point. I play tournements with almost all buy-ins and my observation is that whatever you do postflop (min raise, 1/2 pot, 3/4 pot etc.) you’ll get at least one caller (usually 3) no matter what position you are in, so you better have a hand to continue.
An old adage says: “Play the player, not the cards.”
Cheers
Galak
My point, aside from the original question, is that playing nothing as though it’s something is something I try not to do in poker, since there’s always the chance that someone has the something you’re attempting to represent and to hope people THINK it’s what you have based on how well you convince them has an added element of uncertainty that leaves the control in the “poker Gods” and takes it away from the strengths of my poker skills>playing your hand well, disciplined, level-headed, and thought-out as thoroughly as possible given the time you have before the clock runs out. I have made playing a short stack at mid-point into a seat at final table more times than I can count. I’m not and would never say I’m great, or can’t learn from anyone, anywhere, since that would require me to think in a way that’s more obtuse than I have ever been, even hammered drunk. I have more examples that won’t post here. Hands from this afternoon that demonstrate getting value from hands not considered “the nuts”. Playing small and or suited connectors, protecting blinds, and knowing your options and outs are all things I’ve picked up from watching pro’s like Daniel, Ivey, Hellmuth Jr., Brunson, Nguyen, Johnny Chan, Mike Sexton, Eric Seidel, and and the late, great, Stu Ungar. Thanks
Pots won without showdown indicates who can play and who can’t. If you can’t bluff, you can’t play poker. You can’t always depend on the cards. It is a must to study hands and players. There will be times when everyone has basically nothing, you have to win your share of those pots to keep you in the game. The small pots add up and sets you up when you do have something and people figure you’re bluffing. People will make foolish calls when they think you’re bluffing. I prefer people to confuse people first and then fear me. I want them to think I’m bluffing when I’m not. They will always stay in the hand to long. When I first started playing I was losing like crazy it seems I couldn’t get a hand and then I realized that I was being bluffed 50% of the time.
If you’re referring to betting after the flop has hit the board, meaning initiating the action, I would need to have at least a pair(either by pairing one of the flop cards or if I had been dealt a pocket pair) to make the first bet. I do not need to have a pair to consider calling a bet from another player if the flop gave me a straight or flush draw. I say consider because it isn’t automatic, given the amount of variables that can be in play in any hand and that can change instance to instance based on when they happen to occur in a tournament and what circumstances are relevant to that moment. I might play an unorthodox style, but I am definitely not “winning less” because I don’t bluff, nor would I necessarily “win more” by incorporating bluffing into my game.
Let me try another analogy. It is like you are a football coach, and you are saying, "I only run the ball because throwing a pass could result in an incompletion or interception. My record as a coach is 58-42, so passing plays wouldn’t make me “win more” and not throwing them doesn’t make me “win less”.
While it’s true that calling passing plays badly would cause you to do worse than just running the ball, calling good passing plays is an important part of being the best football coach you can be. If you are fine with your record, that is fine. But calling some passing plays is definitely an advantage if done correctly. Now replace “calling passing plays” with betting the flop without having a pair. And yes, having a balanced bluff to value bet ratio is as fundamental to poker as passing is to a football team.
OK, let me throw an analogy out there!
Let’s say you’re a fella that likes to play stuff by Elton John and Billie Joel on the piano. You love that kind of music, and you’re pretty good at playing it.
Now let’s suppose this other fella comes along and tells you that you should be playing classical music, and that if you only took the time and effort to master Chopin’s entire catalog, you would be a much better player.
This is true, of course. Classical music is more complex and Chopin in particular is technically demanding in the extreme. Learning to play that stuff would take a lot of time and effort, and what if you don’t like that kind of music? What’s a fella to do?
Well, I’m thinking that fella should simply smile, nod, and start playing, “Goodbye Yellow Brick Road,” because he is playing for his own enjoyment!
You are right, of course. That fella should do whatever he finds enjoyable.
But this thread is not about how a specific fella should play. It’s a general commentary about “winning at poker” and not a debate about “playing poker for enjoyment.” Moreover, it’s not advice aimed at one fella. It’s general advice for how to improve as a poker player.
I have no idea where you got all that ! The OP asked…
The general consensus was that nobody knows the answer. Then, when the OP said he never bluffs, we kinda wandered into the merits of bluffing and the OP said he doesn’t like bluffing.
Generally speaking, when the OP takes the thread in a slightly different, but related, direction after the original question has been explored, it’s just fine and dandy. I like a good analogy as much as the next fella, so when they started bustin’ out the analogies, I couldn’t resist throwing one out too!
Please try to stay on the wandering topic in the future, thanks!
Yes, I understand. I was referring to the discussion about bluffing, not the original question. Also, this discussion is not strictly about whether moeron should or should not bluff. This discussion is about the general value of bluffing for winning at poker, not whether or not moeron should become a bluffer. Is that sufficiently clear?
Well, it’s a little clearer, i guess, but not much.
I shall recap my original points to make it more clearer, maybe even the mostest clearest…
I, personally, think bluffing is important and I bluff the exact right amount.
If someone is playing for enjoyment, they should not feel the need to play in a way they don’t enjoy.
Bluffing poorly can be less profitable than not bluffing at all.
I shall include my new graphic in my posts in order to avoid such unpleasantness in the future…
Not everything that limps is a comparison.
haha, sehr gut mein Freund!
It seems like you are triggered by my posts, even though you and OP weren’t making the same points. He is arguing that how he plays is successful, and you seem to now be arguing that all of poker is a melange of whatever anyone feels like doing. Music isn’t a zero sum game, so your analogy doesn’t apply. I can’t force anyone to learn strategy, but it doesn’t seem right to conclude that knowing how to bluff or not is an individual choice like preferring blue or green, when it is actually a skill in the game we are discussing. If people don’t want to do it or don’t care or don’t want to learn how, that’s fine. But it is still important to being a good player, not just a personal preference.
Forcing a proven losing strategy on the very one who’s proven it is absurdity, at the highest, most preposterous level absurd ever achieved. I wish to, at this time, reveal that my no-bluffing policy is restricted only to my on-line game and that live it’s a different chia-pet, altogether. For the very last time I offer in my defense, to forward the emails I receive when I cash in any tournament. And now I double-down…my finishes in the Asian League the last 2 years which have been in the top 10 every time, save a few months when I had traumatic shtuff to deal with, a sign of consistency, something the pro’s always mention. I guess all these final tables means something, yes?
I hate to say this (wish this conversation was over), but it has to be said if we are talking about facts and data.
If a player joined Replay in 2015 and logged in 500 days (all nonconsecutive, 500 days out of a possible ~1800 days), they would have 500 * 500 chips. That would be 250,000 chips. Any less than 250,000 chips from 500 nonconsecutive days would mean that the player’s overall winrate is in the negative. This could be from bankroll management (one could lose a billion chips in a day), but over a sample size of tens of thousands of hands, it is unlikely to be due to luck.
Edit: And again, my original point was that bluffing is not “lying” or “greedy”, and it is a fundamental part of being a good poker player. That is not up for debate. Read any poker strategy from Doyle Brunson to GTO. Nowhere will anyone say “bluffing is a personal choice, so you don’t need to do it”. I have even said that bluffing on Replay is unnecessary. It is still part of being a good poker player. If we are all in agreement on those points (which maybe we are? I can’t really tell at this point), then this thread has run its course.
Additional edit: I invite anyone to sit with me at the elite stakes ring and see how your strategy holds up (not just bluffing related, any strategy that you consider to be a winning strategy). The elite stakes of Replay are like the microstakes of a cash site (5NL maybe), but more passive. So, if you have a good poker strategy, you should be able to win consistently over 10,000 hands. But, it takes some bankroll to be able to play those stakes on an even footing. The lower stakes are very chaotic and definitely don’t require bluffing (although it is still beneficial to have at your disposal). Yes, tournaments are different from ring, but without shifting stack sizes, table sizes, and ICM, the play becomes more mathematical and rote, so your strategy from tourneys should still hold up in ring. And the 1m chip buy-in tourneys here are lower quality of opposition than the 20k/40k ring.
Please tell me why we don’t see all hands that go to showdown. Can anyone please help thank you
Losing hands can, and usually will, muck instead of showing. You can see those cards in the replay if you were in the hand though. As to why - that’s about as close as you can get to how live poker works. Players will usually muck, but have to show if requested by anyone in the hand.
