Originally Posted by rindhoops
Hi Steveg, I think you have answered my question.
As a 'real' gambler who rarely bets without some sort of edge,
I am loathe to bluff and v rarely do, people must notice this.
Yu are right I really ought to bluff a lot more, It's just not in my nature though!
In my defence, last night for example I played in a $5 rebuy,
I played 3 hands an hour (nearly fell asleep) but got to the money
90th/1000 I think & got unlucky, so I'm playing v tight.
As for going to showdown my monitoring software seems to view a high 'wts%' as a bad thing, (my av is 49%) in other words my software
(Holdem Indicator) is telling me I'm not laying enough hands down,
prob because my average 'wtsw%' is a rather poor 50% considering
the hands I play.
nevertheless I feel I am getting better at spotting a bluff, I just assume every bet is a bluff now & I am usually right
I understand where you're coming from with this statement - "As a 'real' gambler who rarely bets without some sort of edge", and I think we any player who takes their poker remotely seriously tries to do this.. however I think it's important to point out that mathematical edges regarding which cards are likely to fall out of the deck or whether your hole cards are likely to be the best aren't the only ways to determine advantages in poker.
In low limit tourneys and full ring games you can be mildly successful by simply playing the cards. But the fact of the matter is you're very rarely going to find yourself in a situation where you have the best cards for a majority of the time, so eventually, to progress, players have to find ways to keep winning when they don't have the best cards.
In a lot of circumstances these bluffs or semi-bluffs that you are having bet into you may actually be mathematically correct play by the opponent- i.e they are exploiting an 'edge' they have over you. Where you might think someone's acting like a maniac for betting 4,5 or whatever into you.. they may actually have a sound reason to do so, whether they know it or not!
For example, if a player is folding 85+% of hands preflop and only continuing after the flop when they hit the board, then other players on the table can justify raising and betting nearly any two cards into them, because it's a play that will win a higher percentage of the time. When you take into account the likelyhood the 'rock' will fold preflop, the odds
that the rock will miss the flop and fold if he does call the initial raise, then add those percentages to the chances of your weaker hole cards actually holding up if the hand goes to a showdown, you'll find raising preflop or calling then betting these weaker hands on the flop is more than likely mathematically justifiable correct play against this type of rock.
So the moral is! don't always just look at the likelyhood of hole cards being the best or the odds of cards hitting on the board, and by all means DON'T just assume that every bet is a bluff cause you could just turn into a calling station. Look into the other "implicit" edges in poker tournaments and sng's. The better you get at working out when and why an opponent is likely to fold, the more successful you'll be.
You might find some articles on ICM interesting. There's a few on this site but some do get pretty in depth: Independent Chip Modeling Part 2: Positive Chip EV Doesn’t Mean Positive Monetary EV