bluffing Q

"According to David Sklansky, Game theory shows that a player should bluff a percentage of the time equal to his opponent's pot odds to call the bluff. For example, in the final betting round, if the pot is $30 and a player is contemplating a $30 bet (which will give his opponent 2-to-1 pot odds for the call), the player should bluff half as often as he would bet for value (one out of three times)." - from wikipedia

Is this to say that every situation where you can't bluff (because it would be doing it too often) and you can't value bet either (because you don't have a hand), you're supposed to check/fold?

Ask Phil Ivey what HE thinks about Sklanky's NL bluffing advice!

He'd his arse off!

to put it in a nutshell: in theory yes

but you have to calculate the style of your opponents, your image and the certain situation

but the follow this rule it is a very good reference for your play

yes but you need to factor in how LIKELY the guy is to fold.

thus pot odds is only the starting point.. you need to be able to say to yourself 'one in 3 times this guy bets / acts like his he folds on the river'

Thus the chances of him folding in THIS situation is 1 in 3 So if the pot odds justify the raise then raise.

Its not simply a case of seeing 1:3 pot odds and figuring that means you need to bluff 1:3 times.

Also its probably a principle that lends better to limit poker rather than nolimit

Try doing this with a table of calling stations and you will have the dubious distinction of losing to them. But the math and theory behind it makes sense.

if the table is full of calling stations then the chances of success are very low i.e 1:1000 so the pot odds would never justify it.

in order for it to work you must compare the odds of success to pot odds.

calling stations just give an exeptionally low chance of sucesss

At what points in a MTT do you employ the bluff?

hmm, gotta say I don't get the theory behind this advice. So you are contemplating betting pot. That would give 2:1. This means that you bluff half as much as you value bet.

We step into villain's shoes. We have a marginal hand. We beat bluffs but not value bets. We see a $30 bet. We know that 2/3 of the time this is a value bet and 1/3 of the time it's a bluff, and are getting 2:1. This means the ev of a call is (1/3)*60 - (2/3)*30 = 0. I think that's the point of that number, but look at it a little bit more. That means that in terms of ev, a call and a fold are EXACTLY THE SAME. Now the goal of poker is to force your opponent to make a mistake. Betting this way basically ensures that your opponent will not make a mistake, since folding and calling are exactly the same. I guess his point is that from a game theory perspective this is the best strategy if our opponent knows our exact line (ie if he knows what percentage are bluffs). If he knows them he will pick the +ev one. In that case the best we can do is make sure neither is +ev for him. But that hardly happens in real life.