10$ NL 6-max: A few Multi-Street Bluffs

Read on Villain: He calls 3-bets with suited connectors without the implied odds needed, has made a few 3-bets himself, so he's moderately aggro.

Psilosybin is at seat 0 with $9.06.
Hero is at seat 3 with $9.28.

Hero posts the small blind of $.05.
Kronke posts the big blind of $.10.

Hero:


Pre-flop:

Psilosybin raises to $.35. cabine folds. Hero
re-raises to $1.35. Kronke folds. Psilosybin calls.


Flop (board: ):

Hero checks. Psilosybin checks.

Turn (board: ):

Hero bets $1.95. Psilosybin calls.

River (board: ):

Hero goes all-in for $5.98.....



Kinda ugly, not sure what I'm repping here on this hand (JT?), but I figured a scare card hit and I'd just blow this guy off his hand. He's a little short tho. I also have no showdown value what-so-ever.


gadog1972 is at seat 0 with $6.83.
Hero is at seat 5 with $14.81.
The button is at seat 3.

brenodart posts the small blind of $.05.
Hero posts the big blind of $.10.

Hero:

Pre-flop:

gadog1972 calls. outlay calls. rickmurphy777 calls.
brenodart calls. Hero checks.

Flop (board: ):

brenodart checks. Hero bets $.35. gadog1972
calls. outlay folds. rickmurphy777 folds.
brenodart folds.

Turn (board: ):

Hero bets $1. gadog1972 calls.

River (board: ):

Hero bets $3....

You guys don't really like posts about bluffs :|

Is it because its largely read-based at these limits, or just because you think I'm a retarded spew-tard?

nice job with the bluffs

if you keep pushing and keep pushing unlike some of the other people online many will crumple and fold

nh

I think most NL10 players aren't thinking much about what you are repping. It is more like "oh wow he just went all in i guess he must have a huge hand" regardless of whether or not your line makes any sense. And ofc you'll get plenty of the "others" who will like their hand enough that it doesn't matter how "good" your bluff is they will call you down no matter what.

feitr said:

I think most NL10 players aren't thinking much about what you are repping.

Click to expand...

I hear this all the time, and its totally false. 10$ NL players may be terrible in many ways, but they understand a few basic things. Think they don't know about ranges, c-betting, ect.? Explain this:

minxrancher is at seat 5 with $12.35
Hero is at seat 6 with $9.85.
The button is at seat 6.

Pokervarino posts the small blind of $.05.
hopetorunhot posts the big blind of $.10.

Hero:


Pre-flop:

Bunch of Folds. minxrancher raises to $.20. Hero re-raises
to $.85. 2 folds minxrancher calls.

Flop (board: ):

minxrancher checks. Hero bets $1.35. minxrancher
calls.

Turn (board: ):

minxrancher checks. Hero bets $3.55. minxrancher
folds, showing . Hero is returned $3.55
(uncalled).


Hand #55254778-7423 Summary:

$.22 is raked from a pot of $4.55.
Hero wins $4.33.

I got a million other hands just like it too, where a villain will bet out on low flops with air because they think I'm only raising with stuff like AK, or call me down with 2nd pair, because he doesn't believe that I would raise a hand that hits a 359 flop.

Some players at micro stakes understand that people raise with big cards. They understand that people c-bet flops without hitting anything. They understand hand ranges. However, the main issue is they just have no clue what to do about it, and they mistakenly put people on the wrong range.

You can bluff at microstakes, and they need to make sense. Its just its far more difficult to pull off. You can't just pick a random situation and just throw money in the middle and make them go away. But my image is usually pretty freakin' terrible, and players notice this (they call me a donk in chat). But if you rep the right thing against a player who notices the right things, you can make them fold.

Also, imo, the only harder thing to do than bluff right is to catch bluffs. And most microstakes players have no idea how to make bluffs, much less catch them.

Just catching up with these from the weekend.

I think the cards we're representing is the biggest issue in the first hand. Our three-bet represents strength so we're talking about what... AJ+, TT+? Maybe a bit wider than that since we're playing six-max, but I'm thinking that ballpark unless we've been three-betting rampantly.

With that range, we're representing one big pair as the biggest part of our range - a hand that's either way ahead of the villain (vs a busted straight or flush draw) or way behind him (if he's holding 57 for the straight, or maybe a set).

So the problem for me is that most of the hands we're folding out are ones we beat at showdown anyway - our ace high should take it down against most busted draws unless he's holding 87d. So I think I just check the river on this one.

If villain is prone to bluffing with a busted draw on the river I might throw out a couple of bucks as a blocking bet. That's the thing, I guess - shoving doesn't really accomplish anything that a smaller bet wouldn't and though it's a bit nitty, we save about $4 if we bet smaller then fold to a raise.

Second hand... I dunno if we can represent JT, because that means we were betting the flop into multiple opponents with just a gutshot. JTd might be possible, I dunno. But mostly the story that would tell me is that you hit a pair of kings with an average kicker.

I'd be pretty happy with this line, I think: we're representing our pair of kings all the way to the end. Draws have to make up a big percentage of the villains range here, JT is the only one that's hit, and again that was just a gutshot with no overcards on the flop, so it's unlikely.

The difference between this hand and the first one is that we can only win by betting, as there's roughly nothing we beat. Obv we have to fold if we get raised, but I think I like this. We've told as consistent a story as we can, and it's a story that should fold out a big part of the villain's range.

#1, you're basically repping AK (or maybe aces up), you probably fold out QJ/pocket pairs. Problem here is though you have almost no information about his range, it's extremely wide. The turn bet after the checked flop gives you practically nothing, as he could be calling with 22 there. Now the simple fact that his range is so wide and that the K is a scare card for practically all of it adds up to folding out a lot of hands, so I think I like this bluff, far more than the next one anyway.

#2, what the hell do you fold out here? Maybe other missed flush draws? Especially with a missed flush draw, most hands that call 2 barrels call the 3rd one. What are you honestly trying to fold out here? I just think it seems like a case of "it's an A, overcards are scary, I'll bet here". Only thing you fold out is maybe QJ who floated your flop bet, improved on the turn, and then would most likely fold to a third barrel. But even KJ I have to believe is calling you here. Here's where we get into multi-level thinking, because a bad opponent will see a big bet and fold most hands. But this just looks so much like a bluff, and is not as scary a card as it seems either. What would he put you on here? What double barrels a flop and then triples an A river? Maybe 2 pair? A set? Your range is just so polarized and the missed flush draw is always a sign of more bluffs.

I like #1, I think #2 is just spew. Just my opinion.

c9h13no3 said:

I hear this all the time, and its totally false. 10$ NL players may be terrible in many ways, but they understand a few basic things. Think they don't know about ranges, c-betting, ect.? Explain this:

Click to expand...

yes obviously there are exceptions. My point is simply that, imo, it is more profitable to play abc poker at micro stakes. Sure sometimes you'll get somebody to fold out a good hand, but probably more often you'll get some donk who can't lay down 2nd pair and you are left there wondering why you didn't concentrate on value betting.

It may be a cliche, but the saying that you can only bluff decent players is true oftentimes. The leak of most nl10 players tends to be, not that they think about hand ranges and can be bluffed off pots (although sure some do and some can) but that they either 1. call way too much or 2. play like a complete manaic. These players are plentiful in micro stakes and it is these that you should be concentrating on...and trying to bluff such players isn't the best line to take. You also shouldn't be 3 betting light in nl10 imo, because that isn't a play that exploits the leaks of micro stake players (unless stats indicate they are loose preflop with a high flop fold%, and if so 3 bet away) and is much more useful at higher stakes.

as for the bluffs i moreorless agree with zach. I like the first, because you do play it pre/post flop as if you have ak, draws missed (if he is likely to have a s/c here) and it is fairly unlikely that he can be happy with his hand on the river, when 2 big cards in your range have hit. Number 2 i don't like. You are really only repping k9 or kq or a flopped set (of which only 22 is probably going to be realistic if anybody is paying attention since 99/kk are popping it up pre). Alot of the other hands in your range are checking it back on the river, so this does look quite alot like a bluff. kq/22 are triple barreling this river, all other geniune hands are checking it back (unles villain is a station and you want to v-bet light, and missed fds/bluffs are betting it.

Not so sure on the first one really. I think it would have made a little more sense to put a bet down on a flop. Raising on the turn after checking the flop would look real bluffy to me from the villains position. But also the K and Q do look logical as cards that you would have raised with preflop

If you're going to make a big all-in bluff, it's usually much better to do it with a hand that doesn't have a shot at being the best hand. This is why I don't like bluffs with ace-high hands.

For your reading pleasure: Fredrik Paulsson: Bluffing with weak hands

In the non-ace-high hand, I'm not sure what to think. He'll probably fold J8/T8/98. He'll certainly fold JdXd and TdXd. Maybe even QJ. Hmm.

Yeah, you could be OK here. It's a pot-sized bet so he needs to fold more than half the time, which he might if he's at least a little bit tight. And you're not running bluffs versus calling stations, are you?

F Paulsson said:

And you're not running bluffs versus calling stations, are you?

Click to expand...

I'm not that retarded.

Would bluff #2 make sense if a lot of my flush draws were ace high? I realize villain is not thinking that deeply, but against a better villain, does that make sense?

But for this particular play, I've just seen this guy lay hands down. Not really sure what I was repping, but a lot of times you don't really have to rep anything . I figured with no showdown value + a guy who can fold, that's a pretty easy 75% pot bet against a non-thinking opponent + a scare card on the river.

but probably more often you'll get some donk who can't lay down 2nd pair

Click to expand...

Yes, that's why we get *reads*. There are calling stations at every level, and we don't bluff them. Sure, I can make decent money by playing straightforward ABC poker. But I can make MORE money by bluffing the players that can be bluffed.

1st hand: even though you DO have ace high in the first hand, you are probably down when he calls the Q, so i dont hate the river bet at all as a bluff. however, it is probably best to bet on the flop, represent that overpair and you will 90% of the time take down that pot just like that because the reraise shows so much preflop strength, and the 10% time you don't he's probably going to have a real monster, and you will know he has a real monster so you dont lose any more.

you realy just dont want to be giving villain free cards here, checking shows weakness on the flop, not often do you see players check overpairs in this situation, maybe KK or AA, hoping that high card pairs up villain, to extract a little more money. bet on the turn makes it look like a slowplay or AQ, and what exactly can you even be slowplaying here? 88? AA/KK? river all in kind of eliminates AQ from the picture, leaving AA/KK/88 (i dont see 66/44 being much of a reraise preflop hand, often not even 88). with the turn call you've gotta be thinking low set or Qx, pot's probably big enough where the set wouldnt reraise, especially with aggression. the river bet's likely going to get that Qx to fold, unless its KQ (actualy not that unlikely here), obviously set is going to be calling here. what's most scary is that he put a lot in on the turn, not that unlikely he's committing himself with a monster, and the bettings definitely a bit fishy, so good luck with that bluff.

2nd hand: love it, i would not fire out a river bet here if it ever came to that, just saying.

Ihatecowboys said:

however, it is probably best to bet on the flop

Click to expand...

I disagree. Against a player who calls preflop pretty loosely, small pairs & suited connectors make up a good portion of his range. Those hit this flop pretty hard, and I'm planning to check/fold on the flop. Players at these limits for some reason just don't think about overpairs. I don't know if its a "well, he just can't have aces" mentality or what.

AA & KK are not in villains range. He would be 4-betting that preflop so hard it wouldn't be funny. Like zach said, he could be peeling me with a pretty wide range on the Q. The K is a good card to bet, so I just put him in on the river. Plus my hand looks a lot like AK due to the flop action.

2nd hand: love it, i would not fire out a river bet here if it ever came to that, just saying.

Click to expand...

That is a river bet. Other than that, its just standard semi-bluffing.

said he could be thinking AA or KK are in your range

PS: I was looking at the 3rd hand and calling it the 2nd hand :/ you did not river bet in the 3rd hand lol

c9h13no3 said:

Would bluff #2 make sense if a lot of my flush draws were ace high? I realize villain is not thinking that deeply, but against a better villain, does that make sense?

But for this particular play, I've just seen this guy lay hands down. Not really sure what I was repping, but a lot of times you don't really have to rep anything . I figured with no showdown value + a guy who can fold, that's a pretty easy 75% pot bet against a non-thinking opponent + a scare card on the river.

Click to expand...

I think the important point here is that you're not really representing a flush draw - you're representing a made hand (probably the kings) that's trying to push a flush draw out.

This hand works out one of two ways, in my mind:

1 - if villain's holding a busted flush or straight draw he's gotta figure you for a made hand, and there's no way he can call you. It's just too unlikely that you've been betting this all the way with nothing or a draw that's worse than his

2 - while lower pairs will probably fold as well (particularly if our read is that villain knows how to make a laydown), if villain's got an ace or a king, we're probably getting called

We've gotta figure his range is folding a lot more often than it's calling. Combine that with the fact that we've got no showdown value whatsoever (the big difference between this hand and the first one) and I think it's a well exectued play, regardless of the results.

OzExorcist said:

I think the important point here is that you're not really representing a flush draw - you're representing a made hand (probably the kings) that's trying to push a flush draw out.

This hand works out one of two ways, in my mind:

1 - if villain's holding a busted flush or straight draw he's gotta figure you for a made hand, and there's no way he can call you. It's just too unlikely that you've been betting this all the way with nothing or a draw that's worse than his

2 - while lower pairs will probably fold as well (particularly if our read is that villain knows how to make a laydown), if villain's got an ace or a king, we're probably getting called

We've gotta figure his range is folding a lot more often than it's calling. Combine that with the fact that we've got no showdown value whatsoever (the big difference between this hand and the first one) and I think it's a well exectued play, regardless of the results.

Click to expand...

The only Ks that are betting three streets here are K9 and KQ. 22 also will bet 3 streets, but the other sets are very very unlikely given preflop action. JT shouldn't be leading out into this flop. In fact, KQ might squeeze preflop and K9 would often check behind on the river. The problem here is the river...all bluffs/draws must bet the river, while almost all made hands are checking it behind. I don't mind the turn bet, but if villain isn't willing to let a weak K or something go after 2 streets there is no reason to think they would let it go after the river.

Add to all this the fact that there was a flush draw on the flop, and a sensible villain is going to be looking him up here with a very wide range if hero is aggro/been caught bluffing/bad image etc.

Anyways, almost no NL10 players think like this, so an analysis is pretty pointless.

feitr said:

Anyways, almost no NL10 players think like this

Click to expand...

Which is why this bluff owns