ChuckTs
Legend
Silver Level
ChuckTs
Legend
Silver Level
NineLions
Advanced beginner
Silver Level
I think you're exceptional, Daks.
But yeah, I've always interpreted that as applying in general, and probably particularily at serious levels that Harrington plays at, and just based on his experience rather than any type of research.
I think what's he's trying to point out too is to never totally eliminate the possibility that your opponent might be bluffing.
But yeah, I've always interpreted that as applying in general, and probably particularily at serious levels that Harrington plays at, and just based on his experience rather than any type of research.
I think what's he's trying to point out too is to never totally eliminate the possibility that your opponent might be bluffing.
J
jonfelkin
Enthusiast
Silver Level
I bluff around 10-20% of the time but only to a board i would imagine my opponent to have also missed and i normally wait til mid-late in the game so people start to think i only bet when i have a hand, works well most of the time unless you get caught straight away.
zachvac
Legend
Silver Level
I think this is pretty much what he was trying to say. I was very skeptical at first, but as I started to see stuff happen with that rule in mind, it made more and more sense. Many people simply do not understand how to bluff, and simply think it means shoving chips in the pot with sh**. It just means that no matter what you may think, even if you think it would take an idiot to bluff in this situation, you should assign at least a 10% chance of them bluffing, because although unlikely (10% is still very low), there's a chance they're making a move with 9 high.
royalburrito24
Legend
Silver Level
I believe the 10% rule applies a lot more to live play than online play. Online play is a little easier to bluff because you dont have to face the guy you are bluffing, but live you have to stare down, and be stared down on, so you would mostly likely bluff less for that reason...
online i usually go with 15-20%
live i stick with the good old 10%
online i usually go with 15-20%
live i stick with the good old 10%
E
ellisman7
Rock Star
Silver Level
hmm thats a little to much for my liking, but maybe ill give it a shot, just to test it out
royalburrito24
Legend
Silver Level
i have a feeling it would be post flop play
NineLions
Advanced beginner
Silver Level
And maybe it applies more to tournament play than ring games, especially if you play one table SnGs.
Here I'm thinking of very short table play where I'll take stabs at pots with nothing just because I think the other player can't or won't call. I'll do this a lot more often than bluffing at a full table, although c-betting is a form of bluffing as well.
Here I'm thinking of very short table play where I'll take stabs at pots with nothing just because I think the other player can't or won't call. I'll do this a lot more often than bluffing at a full table, although c-betting is a form of bluffing as well.
aliengenius
Cardschat Elite
Silver Level
No.
While there are plenty of times you can correlate event odds with dollar odds, this really isn't one that translates directly.
But, if you do make this call it probably wont be that big of a dollar mistake long term...
aliengenius
Cardschat Elite
Silver Level
No.
While it's all fine and dandy to say that your opponent bluffs at least 10% of the time, you have to remember that that's long term/run. In any given situation it could be 100% bluff or 100% stone nuts.
So to say "if your opponent bets 10% of the pot you should call," isn't exactly true (although as I said, I don't think it's a huge error to do so).
I think that Harrington is saying that 10% is something you have to factor into your calculations as far as putting your opponent on a range of hands. For example, you shouldn't think it's 80% he has top pair and 20% he is on a draw. You should factor in in the 10% bluff factor some how (75% tp, 10% bluff, 15% busted draw?). Regardless, this isn't how you think at the table. The point is that you need to consider the (naked?) bluff as a factor as well, and 10% (long term) is enough to make it a statistically significant factor.
aliengenius
Cardschat Elite
Silver Level
Right, but that isn't the same as saying you should aways call if your opponent bets only 10% of the pot...
aliengenius
Cardschat Elite
Silver Level
Not if it's 100% that you are beat in the specific situation.
Example:
we have 42s, and check from the bb to the button limp (sb folds). Flop comes down AK3, giving us the gut shot. Check, check. Turn: Q, check check. River: Q. Opponent bets 10% of pot. Clearly you can't call. [ok he can't actually bet 10% here, since there hasn't been enough action, but don't make me think of a scenario where someone else called and you called a flop bet w implied odds, the point is the same]
Similarly, in any given specific situation you might have a very specific read on your opponents bluffing frequency, either + or - the 10%.
The point is that you need to factor in at least a 10% bluffing frequency when assigning a range LONG TERM. There are time you can be, for example, 93% certain that your opponent isn't bluffing.
I think...
or maybe I'm wrong here... could be...
ChuckTs
Legend
Silver Level
Well that's true. That's what I meant with the bold part here:
That's what I'm getting at. With enough info, you could come to the conclusion that a certain type of player will bluff-raise <%10 of the time, for example, right?
Well now you've just lost me
I'm not sure why he would mention %10 minimum bluffing frequency in a hand analysis if the %10 is supposed to be meant for long-term applications.
aliengenius
Cardschat Elite
Silver Level
I can't argue always calling a 10% pot bet.
Jack Daniels
Charcoal Mellowed
Silver Level
After reading through this Chuck, it looks like you're taking Harrington's Law out of context (based on OP). The 10% is not about calling when the pot is 9:1 odds, it is part of your hand analysis equation for the overall guesstimate of your chances of winning the hand then compared to the pot odds to make your decision. The 10% is not used by itself which is why you can apply it to every decision in your analysis.
Take Harrington's example specifically: Hero is UTG with A♦A♣ and raises to 4xBB. Villian (MP, experience and conservative) flat calls and flop comes out 9♥5♣2♠. Hero bets the pot, villian reraises to put hero all in. Pot odds are 3 to 2 for us to call.
HA time: He could be on a set. If he is, then were about 10% to win. He could be on a big pair and we're 92% to win with 2 cards to come. He could be bluffing with a couple big cards making us 97% to win.
Because he's a conservative player, we give him the minimum 10% chance of a bluff. We also make an educated guess that 50% of the time he has the big pair and 40% of the time he has the set. Now with all that established (guessed), we wind up with:
50% (has high pair) * 92% (we win) + 40% (has set) * 10% (we win) + 10% (bluff) * 97% (we win)
= 50%*92% + 40%*10% + 10%*97%
= 46 + 4 + 10 (all numbers rounded)
= 60% chance that we will win the hand overall based on several factors.
Since pot odds are 3 to 2, we make the call. We don't make it because there's a 10% chance he is bluffing, we make it because we guesstimate that we will by river about 60% of time regardless of what he actually has.
I realize I used the #s right out of the book, but I'm hoping that discussing this whole thing in context using the same numbers might help.
What about the same hand with a super rock villian? Let's say he hypothetically makes this move with either a set or a bluff only (even rocks will bluff - it's one of their perks because they get the credit). Still 10% is the minimum for a bluff, but now 90% is a set.
= 90%*10% + 10*97%
= 9 + 10 (rounded again)
= 19% or about 4 to 1. Since pot odds are still 3 to 2, we now have to fold.
I'm rambling now, but I guess the key is that regardless of where the 10% comes from (I'll take Dan's word on it, tbh), it's only a part of the equation (so to speak).
Take Harrington's example specifically: Hero is UTG with A♦A♣ and raises to 4xBB. Villian (MP, experience and conservative) flat calls and flop comes out 9♥5♣2♠. Hero bets the pot, villian reraises to put hero all in. Pot odds are 3 to 2 for us to call.
HA time: He could be on a set. If he is, then were about 10% to win. He could be on a big pair and we're 92% to win with 2 cards to come. He could be bluffing with a couple big cards making us 97% to win.
Because he's a conservative player, we give him the minimum 10% chance of a bluff. We also make an educated guess that 50% of the time he has the big pair and 40% of the time he has the set. Now with all that established (guessed
), we wind up with:50% (has high pair) * 92% (we win) + 40% (has set) * 10% (we win) + 10% (bluff) * 97% (we win)
= 50%*92% + 40%*10% + 10%*97%
= 46 + 4 + 10 (all numbers rounded)
= 60% chance that we will win the hand overall based on several factors.
Since pot odds are 3 to 2, we make the call. We don't make it because there's a 10% chance he is bluffing, we make it because we guesstimate that we will by river about 60% of time regardless of what he actually has.
I realize I used the #s right out of the book, but I'm hoping that discussing this whole thing in context using the same numbers might help.
What about the same hand with a super rock villian? Let's say he hypothetically makes this move with either a set or a bluff only (even rocks will bluff - it's one of their perks because they get the credit). Still 10% is the minimum for a bluff, but now 90% is a set.
= 90%*10% + 10*97%
= 9 + 10 (rounded again)
= 19% or about 4 to 1. Since pot odds are still 3 to 2, we now have to fold.
I'm rambling now, but I guess the key is that regardless of where the 10% comes from (I'll take Dan's word on it, tbh), it's only a part of the equation (so to speak).