Let’s say that I definitely do have a history of bluffing. Let’s say precisely that when you have seen me be called down in similar spots, exactly 1/3 of the time I have been bluffing.
1 Like
I think you are trying to describe playing your bluff pattern to get a big pot on a river hit.
Good players can pull that off more if they have learned to not signal their actual hands or use signals to misdirect an opponent.
A history of bluffing is always going to get you called down more by an average player all things being equal IMO.
People just don’t like bluffers or as Pheobee said to Chandler on Friends “So by bluffing you mean you were just lying!”
That being said- advanced players rely on many more factors in that decision.
ADDED: I had that situation happen this morning but stacks were not even and player tried to bluff a straight against my two pair and I called his all in.
https://www.replaypoker.com/hand/replay/442711768
He signaled he was looking for a straight early and even if the flush possible had hit I would have called his all in because it smelled of desperation.
What he’s describing is at the core of GTO strategy, that having the right bluff/value ratio makes your opponent indifferent to calling or folding (neither is more correct in the long run) then you automatically win. What you’re saying about reads is also true, that no hand is played in a vacuum and that it’s impossible to have enough info to know whether bluff frequency is truly balanced. But having a grasp of this concept is a huge advantage because it explains the value of being the aggressor, of semi bluffs, and really puts your opponents to the test.
3 Likes
Sounds more like people are trying to sell formula betting and GTO isn’t anything new and is repackaged formula betting that was circulating when I was in college- many years ago.
What GTO promotes would result in more poker bullies and while it may work in the short term it would get you read as a bluffer and bully if you stuck around too long and then your average goes way down IMO.
Stick to knowing hand odds and not relying on bluffs as a strategy.
4 GTO Myths That Way Too Many Poker Players Believe
If someone does this, their opponent could simply bet 1/3 pot on any flop, with any 2 cards, and get them to fold all of their draws and small pairs. Knowing my opponent will only call or raise with the 20% of his hands that hit the flop hard enough to continue, one could play accordingly from there. Anyone who never bluffs there is giving up 80% of the pots, and will never get any value from the hands they do hit.
2 Likes
@JoeDirk’s comment is spot on.
Given the situation I described, we can calculate the expected value (EV) of calling or folding. EV is the amount that you win or lose on average from a particular bet.
If you always fold, your expected value is 0 - you do not win or lose any chips.
If you always call, the 1/3 of the time that I am bluffing, you will win the pot of 1,800. However, the 2/3 of the time that I am not bluffing, you will lose your 900.
Your expected value is:
(chance you win * amount you win) + (chance you lose * amount you lose)
= (1/3 * 1800) + (2/3 * -900) = 600 + (-600) = 0.
So your expected value is exactly the same - zero - regardless of which action you choose. This is what JoeDirk is describing as being “indifferent” - it does not matter whether you call or fold, the result for you is exactly the same in the long run.
We can also calculate my expected value when I bet in this way.
If you always fold, my expected value for the bet is 900 since I always win the pot.
If you always call, 1/3 of the time you win the 900 chips that I bluffed, and 2/3 of the time I win the pot plus your additional chips 900 from calling. So my expected value is:
(chance I win * amount I win) + (chance I lose * amount I lose)
= (2/3 * 1800) + (1/3 * -900) = 1200 + (-300) = +900.
My expected value for betting is exactly the same - 900 - regardless of whether you always call or always fold, and is exactly equal to the size of the pot.
The same result is also true if you choose to call sometimes and fold sometimes. The math is a bit more complicated so I am leaving it out of this post.
Moving outside of this example, we can take a couple of things away from this concept of indifference to apply in our more general strategy:
- If I can play on earlier streets in a way that sets up a situation similar to what I described, it’s going to be very favorable for me because I can bet a balanced mix of value and bluffs and have a huge +EV while my opponent’s EV will be zero. Basically if I can set up one of these spots I have already won the hand.
- For any given spot there is an ideal bluffing frequency. If I bluff less often than this frequency then my opponents can exploit me by simply always folding. If I bluff more often than this frequency then my opponents can exploit me by always calling.
The article that @BigDogxxx posted includes a table showing these bluffing frequencies for other common bet sizes on the river:
| Size of Bet | Value Bet to Bluff Ratio |
|---|---|
| 2x pot | 2 bluffs for every 3 value bets |
| 1x pot | 1 bluff for every 2 value bets |
| 0.75 pot | 3 bluffs for every 7 value bets |
| 0.5 pot | 1 bluff for every 3 value bets |
This is a good article and I encourage players interested in these concepts to read it all the way through. I would also encourage reading the game theory concepts article that is recommended from there too.
The Upswing guys also have a really good YouTube channel where they run through hands analyzing the play. They show how truly high level players think about these concepts of balance and bluffing while playing.
1 Like
There is a big difference in using a semi-bluff with a strong possible and bluffing with a no value hand and not caring what you hold or the flop.
GTO promotes bluffing regardless of what you hold or the flop and that is just promoting a Poker Bully style of play that only works in the short term and will get you read by advanced players and cost you more in the long term.
A semi-bluff is all about knowing odds of hands and your bluff is actually a bet based on the odds of the possible you hold as explained in the article I linked above.
Any strategy that doesn’t include bluffing isn’t much of a strategy.
Why did you bluff that river?
Because I had no chance of winning the pot with my cards.
3 Likes
By the time we’re at the river there are no more semi-bluffs. So we need to use something else to decide what to bluff with on the river.
Before the river, if you only bet your made hands and strong semi-bluffs (like open ended straight draws and nut flush draws) against an advanced opponent you are not bluffing enough on many flops. The moment your opponent figures out what you’re doing, they can exploit you by just folding everything except the nuts.
No, it really doesn’t. If you think this then you need to go back and study the concepts more closely.
This is the cool thing about using game theory. You can (and should) bluff in a way so that even if your opponent reads you as using this strategy and knows exactly what you’re doing, the math just doesn’t let them do anything about it.
These game theory concepts (with a lot of refinement) are exactly what advanced players - by which I mean top level, high stakes cash and tournament players - are using. You can dismiss it all you want, but this is the reality of how the game is played at high levels today. These concepts really do work and can be applied thoughtfully not just at high stakes cash but also to games here at Replay too (and everything in between).
You seem to have trouble hearing about and accepting this strategy from me or the other players here giving similar advice, so perhaps you will accept it directly from a world class player.
This video is less than 5 minutes and gives a good overview:
This one is about 30 minutes and goes into more detail if you have the time:
1 Like
GTO is not endorsed by any top players that I can see and bluffing with no value hands is not promoted by pro’s that I am aware of.
If you can find a top 100 pro saying bluff with no value hands please post it?
ADDED: Watch below and listen to reponses from Faraz Jaka , Mustapha Kanit , Luke Schwartz , Randy Lew , Fedor Holz , Jason Mercier , Celina Lin , Andreas Hoivold , and Bryn Kenney .
Not one of them endorses GTO poker style.
This was with at least 5 other top 100 pros…
I already included videos of Doug Polk endorsing game theory concepts and going through key ideas. If you’re not familiar with him, until he retired he was the #1 nosebleed stakes heads up player in the world. He has three WSOP bracelets and won the $1m entry One Drop tournament last year against a field of other elite pros. If you watch the first five minutes of the second video he goes through his credentials there too. He’s also one of the two main people behind the Upswing site that you referenced in your GTO Myths link earlier in this thread.
Here’s how I see it… the GTO guys are like Spock. They can spit out optimal bluff frequencies for any situation, then give you that eyebrow thing until you do whatever it is they want you to do. You have to respect Spock, no doubt about that.
Then you have Captain Kirk. Kirk has been listening to numbers like that for a long time, but he’s more of a “people” person, so numbers are just one part of it to him. Kirk thinks with his gut, or sometimes even lower, and, by golly, if he thinks a display of force will bend you to his will, he’s not afraid to tell Chekov to arm the photon torpedoes and start boldly going…
Spock never bluffs. Kirk has saved many lives with well crafted bluffs against the Romulans and Klingons both.
And don’t even get me started about Picard. Cpt. “check-call/check-fold” Picard never really accomplishes anything. When he bets, his opponent folds, when his opponent bets, Picard folds. There’s never any… resolution. At least with Kirk, stuff blows up.
So I guess my basic point here is that you pretty much have to drag this bluffing thing into the Star Trek universe in order to know how to do stuff the best way.
Anyway, that’s kinda the way I see it.
2 Likes
KIRK: "Not chess, Mr. Spock. Poker.”
1 Like
I agree that GTO has been overblown in the poker world because it is very difficult/impossible for the human brain to consider all possible identical spots and frequencies in a game in which the board can take a million different forms and with different opponents, table size, position, and tournament structure, the possibilities are essentially infinite.
But, the underlying concepts of game theory are still very helpful. Balancing frequencies, sizes, and range-based decision making is extremely valuable even when opponents are exploitable. You can use the idea of these “indifference” points, as @love2eattacos describes using the 2/3 value 1/3 bluff example by tweaking your frequencies to exploit opponent tendencies while remaining close to unexploitable yourself. They can serve as a road map that makes the game a lot easier when you think of things in terms of better hands that you could call with or when you are deciding which hands to turn into a bluff.
I hope everyone gets that, when I call someone an accountant or Spock, I’m, just clowning around. GTO is the science of poker, and I’m a big science fan. I’m also a fan of game theory, and am aware of its limitations.
Easy way to look at this question for playing here - bluff nits frequently and don’t bluff calling stations hardly ever. If you can’t tell the difference, then you shouldn’t even be thinking about bluffing in the first place. Done. This isn’t some high-roller cash game with top pros. This is a place where maybe a handful of people understand that GTO isn’t just an awesome muscle-car. Keep it simple and relax.
@SunPowerGuru - glad I’m not the only one who thought Picard was a weenie. “The Next Generation” made me want to advocate for increased birth control. Ugh.
1 Like
OK, let’s say you have AdQd in the BB, 2 people limp, you make it 4BB, and they both call. Flop comes 10d6d2c. Action’s on you, is a bet here really a bluff? I mean, you probably have a statistical favorite against a lot of hands.
To flesh it out a little, let’s say it’s half way through a MTT with 9 seats per table, and everybody has the tournament average stack. Limpomaniac 1 plays 1 hand per orbit or less, and seems to fold way too much. Limpomaniac 2 plays 2 or 3 hands per orbit and calls way too often.
What’s the play, and why?