ChuckTs
Legend
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.
Harrington also says that if you are not bluffing 10% you are not bluffing enough. Sort of a self-fulfilling number there.
I just read that section, and he said that was from experience.
Would that include standard steals from both the button and the SB?
Do you guys think that we could go so far as saying that every time we are facing a bet giving us 9:1 or better on the river that we have to call with a hand we know is beat but can beat a bluff?
Not sure exactly what you mean - are you comparing real dollars to T$?
I meant for my example to be a cash game one, but forgot to add that. Also forgot to say we're HU for simplicity.
Well that's what I meant.
For example, if we've got %90 hands that beat us and %10 bluff pinned for our opponents range, then we need at least 9:1 odds to call...
I think I'm just confusing myself here.
Why not? If we're getting 9:1 or better, and apply Harrington's minimum %10 bluffing rule, then we should always be calling, no?
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]
Do you guys think that we could go so far as saying that every time we are facing a bet giving us 9:1 or better on the river that we have to call with a hand we know is beat but can beat a bluff?
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'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.