Bluffing, the word implies someone is making a play, a possible mistake for a pot they are not entitled too. Then in the back of the person’s brain is thought of doing something wrong and they will give their explanation of why this did not work for an example of a failure. There has to be an exact explanation of why?
Understanding how to value bet every situation from +ev hands that play themselves to marginal hands with thin value bets from understanding the opponent(s). This line of play when understanding your opponent(s), this is the non-centralized part of their game to get value when they do not have us beat, to exploit, comfortability from not worrying about being beat and getting the proper amount of value.
When a person then understands the other side of the coin, the centralized spots in their game, where the opponent is getting value from us, how they are playing their hands, how do they play draws, getting as much counter information to analyze. When a person understands where an opponent is getting value and where are they willing to put in as many bets, where is the line, where they start backing off the + value line? This is important because when a player see’s weakness in their opponent exploiting this information now becomes to your opponent a negative ev situation in their mind from their own choosing because of the + value line becoming clouded from not being comfortable in certain situations as an example. Created is the same comfortability that simulates us having a hand, and our opponent again will tell themselves to fold as an example. I am never bluffing but sometimes I get caught from a miss-read.
Centralized spots in their game when they are comfortable, non-centralized parts of their game where they are uncomfortable. Variables, are they board readers, do they adhere to board texture when they are weak but do not when they are strong? Do they understand scare cards? Do they react to scare cards? Are they reactive to my play? Are they reactive to my bet sizes? Perceived betting patterns from betting routines, do they understand a change of sequence form changing up streets of betting as an example? These scenario’s and many others help understand your opponent’s centralized and non-centralized parts of their game to exploit, and to stay away from as some examples.
Bluffing for me needs to be fluid as a part of my game, when I use this depends on what I am reading and not something I just decide to do. I understand what the perceived move is going to be without the need of telling myself I need to bluff because bluffing is not a human reaction it is part of who the poker player is in any given moment. Mistakes are going too made even as simple as making c-bet at the wrong time.
Understanding my image is relative to what my perceived value betting image, bluffing image, which my opponents will perceive in my play, both images in my game, for my opponent will be fluid in their mind, and then understanding what will trigger my opponent to choose what they perceive is the right play.
For example, whether they are strong or weak players certain lines of play will make themselves be known, they will react, because most will react the first time in situations, instead of acting on them the first time because the problem is abstract the first time in non-centralized parts of their game. When they make an action the second time a scenario presents itself from the prior initial reaction, now I have picked up a change in my opponent’s play and thinking in the moment. They made a mistake to adjust, to act, from a reaction from a prior play.
One step behind my play has now been created from them willing to adjust the second time around instead of acting in the moment the first time they seen a certain scenario. The question now for me is did they make an adjustment that is still exploitable because of my experience in these situations? Or is my opponent making the proper adjustment that is above my skill level? How many levels can I think abstractly about them, about myself in these situations?
Bluffing and value betting is an abstract problem, how each person, opponent understands how to solve an abstract problem in the moment will depend how much skill they have in narrative theory, in the moment, when the pressure presents itself, and this includes myself. Practice helps to understand when I see this play out positive and negative in situations it just depends on how much I am willing to push certain lines of play in the moment. All of this is what I perceive about myself, my strengths, weaknesses, also about my opponent(s) game, their strengths and weaknesses that are unique to them. Glad to meet you and happy holiday's.