The Perks of being a Bluffer

[Younguru]

I have noticed something really nice about having a LAG image!

If you show enough unfiltered aggression, at some point a lot of players will just kind of stop thinking about your hand, and start thinking about theirs.

They unconsciously forget to hand read, and just get in the mindset of waiting for a “good enough” hand to catch you bluffing. When you make a very strong hand, you can just make sure to play it the same as bluffs you’ve recently shown, and brrrr money machine go $ $ $

The normal worry that you might not have enough bluffs in range to get called by worse goes out the window, because they’re not thinking about that. They are just thinking “I have top pair on a draw board and that guy is betting again.”

Beyond all the nerdy math and theoretical blah blah, I think this is why we so consistently see the top tournament players use a lot of aggression and find creative bluffs: because having that image puts your opponent in a state of constant stress, and eventually, stress breaks most people.

[Younguru]

@daslda did you experience this joyful state on your run to the 2024 RPOS XII Championship?

[daslda]

haha bluff go brrrr win without showdown every time until i get lucky then ill get to showdown

[Younguru]

^this lolol

[Asuronetorius]

Younguru your not as Lag as you think. Your semi tight to semi moderate early, moderate mid tourny, between moderate and semi loose, semi lag, late tournament.

Also while their are some successful super lags like Tom Dwan, Gus Hansen, Phil Laak, and successful semi lags like Ivey, Negreanu, most of the lags, semi lags are either not as successful, or go thru huge variance swings, and when they are successful they BAD BEAT players a heck of a lot, and like you said they get paid off.

The best lags are those players that are between moderate to semi lags, and pick good spots to bluff and don’t bad beat a lot. A example of this is a comparison between Ivey and Nik Airball. Ivey is very aggressive, is between moderate and semi lag, and bluffs semi a lot in good spots, and is rarely caught and rarely bad beats. Nik Airball is a super lag, almost a maniac at times, picks bad spots to bluff, bad beats a lot, occasionally wins big, occasionally luckbox wins, cashes a tournament, gets paid off big like you explained, and is a overrall losing rich player(he is a rich business man with a near inexhaustable supply of money to throw around, lose at the highest stakes, as the losing player he is.), that is a laughing stock.

As far as Poker wise, You are like Phil Ivey, Younguru. And you don’t bad beat a lot, and you don’t call all in with garbage.

The other player that your talking about, that I shall not name, he is more like NIK AIRBALL, but even worse, as even Nik Airball does not call all in with garbage and suckout, bad beat(by garbage hands like 72, 94, T7, J8, Q8, etc.) And Nik doesn’t knowingly play bad on purpose, as he plays bad despite trying.

The player your talking about most of the time finished at or near the bottom, of the leaderboards, and in his 2 wins, BAD BEAT A LOT OF PLAYERS OUT, and BAD BEAT A LOT. He called with garbage, and got ultimate extremely lucky. He knowingly does things like call all in with garbage, etc, on purpose to try and butluck, so that he can annoy players, so that he can then try to rub it in and annoy tilt them, so that his goods will get paid off later in same tournament or later in another tournament, etc.

He has won, cashed a few, some tournaments, but usually I see him busting out early to mid tournament. But he has played well in 1,2 tournaments, so he does know how to play, it’s just that I think he likes knowingly calling all in with garbage, and bad beating, and annoying players, and rubbing it in, and being like Nik Airball, etc, so that he can, does get paid off to eventually win, or cash the occasional rare tournament.

But I dare to be proven wrong, as I dare him to win even 1 tournament, without calling with garbage, without calling all in with garbage, without bad beating more then 1,2,3 times, without rubbing it in talking Sh!t after he bad beats somebody, without being a semi maniac at times.

That doesn’t mean he cant bluff, or make moves like a Ivey, like you Younguru, but if he is doing it a lot, and bad beats a lot, an more then 2,3,4 times in a tournament, per tournament, then that’s not good, or not as good as you, everyone seems to think.

I don’t think he can do it. I dont think he can be more like Ivey, and you Younguru. I think he will be, remain like Nik Airball, but worse.(Just so the mods at Replay know, Nik Airball is not a player at Replay, and plays real money super nosebleed stakes, real money. I am not calling a replay player by name, out, and have not mentioned his name, and I have only mentioned the way the unnamed player plays to make my point, in response to the point another player made. I agree and disagree with the point made and was just responding, replying to that point to make my point, express disagreement, etc.

[daslda]

womp womp

[Younguru]

Your thesis here is that @daslda isn’t actually skilled, and just got lucky
You then challenge him to “prove you wrong” by abandoning his playstyle and winning with a more conservative approach.

This would not “prove you wrong”; it would prove you right!
If he keeps winning without changing his strategy, he will have proven you wrong.

Side note: your disclaimer about supposed anonymity did nothing; we all know who you’re talking about and you may as well just say it. You’re not in court; there’s no brownie points for being procedurally coy
—

As for me, I think you’re proving MY thesis quite beautifully. You think I play semi-tight in early stages, when in fact I am often playing 30% of hands or more. You think I don’t “bad beat” other players often, when in fact I do it all the time.

To me this suggests some cognitive dissonance, specifically confirmation bias, on your part. You see me as a relatively good player, so you make assumptions about my play that don’t align with reality. You see @daslda as a relatively poor player, so you do the same for him (in the other direction).

I think you are an excellent player with a very sound approach to strategy overall, but you have some leaks in that you are very hesitant to reassess your thinking when something or someone challenges what you have learned to be true. This is not uncommon—I suffer from the same bias—but it’s something I think we should all work against if we want to be our best possible selves at the tables

[_Rain]

Gets cognitive discomfort trying to follow all this, it all boils down to, you have the ability to buff or you don’t. If you don’t you, will never be great, you can put all the numbers you want to it. The ability to read the table is parramount, Stu Unger would say what is all this? just put me at the table

[Excaliburns]

I think what our insightful young friend is saying is

when Asuronetorius views dasIda’s play, he sees Bruce Wayne.

When Asuronetorius views Younguru’s play, he sees Batman.

But both players are the same…caliber.

[Asuronetorius]

I’m not asking, daring him to play conservatively. Phil Ivey is NOT a consersative player, and neither are you Younguru. But Ivey and you don’t bad beat a lot. All of us occasionally bad beat players. But there is a difference between dishing out the occasional bad beat, and bad beating 4,5,6,7 bad beats per tournament, and bad beating out other players 3,4,5,6 times per tourny, in addition to the 4,5,6,7 bad beats given out per tourny. Ivey, you, give out 1,2,3,4 bad beats per tourney, and 1,2,3 bad beat knock outs per tourny.

And it’s not just the bad beats, and bad beat knock outs. It’s the manner of them. Ivey, and you Younguru and Ivey do not call big, giant raises, all ins with garbage, to try to bad beat. Your friend does wrongly, badly, does call giant raises, all ins with garbage to try to bad beat. See the difference in that between that?

.Your friends results aren’t good. He has a few, some wins, and a few, some cashes, and is at or near the bottom of not only the RPOS leaderboards, but at, near the bottom of all the Replay leaderboards. And if he were to continue doing what he is doing, and start winning consistently, that wouldn’t prove anything other then he is lucky. I don’t know if you know what OPR, Official online poker rankings is. It’s like Sharkscope, if you know what that is. It’s a world ranking of a million+ players. There was a player at Poker Stars, that was a all in freak, whether shoving all in half the time, or calling all in half the time. Way worse then your friend, bad beating 15 to 25 to 50 times per game. He was the worst player, laughing stock. Would it surprise you that he was the #1 player in the world for 18 months before he then fell to at or near the bottom of the OPR for forever? Going by what your saying Younguru, that player was, and is still a awesomely skilled player. Well that’s wrong. That player is Not skilled, he was just insanely lucky for 18 months. That’s Variance, poker for ya. So likewise if your friend continues calling giant raises, and all in’s with garbage, and butlucking, and bad beating, etc, and either continues to luckbox a couple, few, some tournaments, or if he starts consistently winning, while still calling with garbage, and butlucking, bad beating, etc, that wont prove anything, other then he is not skilled, and just lucky, like the poker stars player that was #1 in the world for 18 months, before disappearing forever.

If your friend can play more like Ivey, you, and not play like loser Nik Airball, and Not call giant raises, all in, with garbage, and only bad beat 1,2,3,4 times per tournament, and only bad beat out other players 1,2,3 times per tournament, while bluffing, etc, and semi consistently win, cash more, then and only then will I be proven wrong.

Btw, my ITM% is about 25%, and ROI is about 45%, and my win % is about 5%, and that’s playing not nowhere near as conservatively as your friend thinks I am. You know, have seen some of the wild crazy bluffs that I have done that have both worked and not worked alike. And my bad beat ratio is that I give out .67 of 1 bad beat per tournament on average, with a couple, few, some tournaments giving out 2,3,4 bad beats, and my record is 5,6 bad beats given out in 1 tournament. And while I have done a few, some wild, crazy bluffs, I don’t call giant raise, all ins, etc, with garbage, and don’t try to butluck, bad beat players, and in position, can and have raised quite wide, in fact about a few weeks ago I open raised 72 suited from the SB, button, against a ultimate super nit, then showed it and said 72 flies. So my results are the result of skill and luck, while the rarely good results of your friend are the result of luck and very little if any skill, except for 1 tournament, he did win, cash, that was a exception, that he did play semi well.

So if your friend can be more like you, and Ivey, instead of being more like that OPR Pokerstars player, or Nik Airball, then I’ll be proven wrong.

[Younguru]

Actually, you spent all week tryharding the RPOS and didn’t make the Top 10 in TOC, and he is the Champion of RPOS XXII and absolutely ran over the field and will be memorialized in Replay history forever, no matter what you or anyone else says

So really, if anyone has something to prove, it’s you, not @daslda /shrugemoji

Nice essay tho

[daslda]

consistent luck is skill

[southwestmba]

[mrzick]

Luck begats skillz----skillz begats luck! Deal with it,LOL

[daslda]

this consistent enough for you?

[Younguru]

@daslda damn homie murder is wrong

hey does this mean you won that HU battle you were asking about?

[daslda]

nah thats the 2nd place PKO solar eclipse AA–suited got me good but i did just win one more

[Younguru]

me too

[Asuronetorius]

Ok here is a 5% to 10% to 15% of time float call reraise bluff, with KQ. I have played a lot against villain. Villain is semi moderate to moderate to semi loose, semi very aggressive, bluffs or bets with air about 29% to 33% to 37% to 43% of time in good spots. Villain limped in early position. sometimes thats a strong hand, but usually it’s a weaker hand in villain’s range. Blinds were 75/150, I raised KQ half pot 410 in mid position. Villain calls so putting villain on a range like JTs, QTs, QJs, KTs, KJs, A6s to AT. Flop was xxx little cards. I checked because board could more likely hit villains range, and if it didnt and if I were to cbet, villain is type of player to check reraise semi bluff, because he knows that board doesn’t hit my range. I also knew that villain would bet small with nothing to try to fold me out. There was a potential flush draw on board, and I hand K of hearts that could become a flush heart draw on turn, and even if didnt, if 3 card flush hit river, I knew that villain would probably semi bluff rep a flush on river, that he probably wouldn’t have because of bluff frequency, and because I had K of heart semi blocker, so I could probably semi safely reraise resteal bluff him off and take down the pot after float calling the whole hand. I had a about a 17.5 bb stack, and villain was a big or bigger stack, so that’s also part of why played this way. And as I thought, checked the flop, I checked behind, then Villain minbet 150 on turn, I float called, started to execute my plan. A 3rd heart hit river, Villain min bet river repping that he had small betted on draw and had hit his flush, and bet small because he wanted a call. But villain bluffs, bets with air enough in that kind of spot, combined with my K of hearts, that its a semi good calculated risk to resteal bluff reraise. I did so. And chose a 1000 5x size to make it seem like I didnt mind a call, and because villain was a thinking, good enough player to not have to shove all in to force a fold in that spot. So I reraised to 1000, about half my stack, and as I had planned it, and knew it, villain folded to my float call bluff, and I showed the KQ bluff to show that I not a nit and am capable of bluffing, since I was extreme card dead for a extreme long time, and had had the goods each time at showdown, even tho I had bluffed 3,4 times earlier, that all but 1 of them worked.

Here is HH:

Hand #1198895939 · Replay Poker

Reason I only do a float call to later bluff turn or river about 5% to 10% to 13% of times, is there is a difference between bluffing someone off their weakness, weak holding, or strong holding that missed, and float calling, against a potentially strong hand and then bluffing later. I’m more careful in such situations, and rely even more on player knowledge, hand raising, etc. Also the K of Hearts was one of the keys in this bluff. If it had been 1 card diamonds, 1 card a black card, I either would have folded or reraised turn, probably the latter, altho occasionally the former. The other keys were betsizing, player knowledge, bluff frequency, etc, so if it had been another player I semi might semi probably not have made the bluff. This bluff is dependent on all those factors, that don’t often come into play. That’s why players should generally probably not do bluffs like that a lot any time they have QJ, KJ, KQ, A2 to A9. If do that, then they are, will run into made hands a lot that call and their chips go poof disappear a lot. But sometimes its ok to do occasionally. And the spot I did it in was a very good spot according to player knowledge. This is why its important to know your competition, players, etc, if you can.

[Younguru]

@Asuronetorius bro I am BEGGING you to stop saying “29 to 33 to 37 to 43%”
“to” means “including values in between”
There is NO reason to not just say “29 to 43%”

When describing ranges you can just say “JT+, A2s-A5s” you don’t have to list ALL THE COMBINATIONS IN RANGE

And use a damn paragraph break every now and then!

If you’re going to write such long posts, at least put a little effort into making them readable. It’s basic consideration for your fellow forum members.

Right now most of your posts look like you are just babbling in stream-of-consciousness. It’s very hard to follow, and makes me skip much of what you’ve written.