$200 NL HE 6-max: 200nl: Would you find this bluff? Is it even correct?

puzzlefish

puzzlefish

🙉 🙈 🙊
Loyaler
Joined
Feb 18, 2018
Total posts
4,291
Awards
3
CA
Chips
229
Representing Kx versus someone who has Kx. Is it correct? I don't think so against SB who isn't going to be defending light and will have plenty of Kx and Ax in their range.
 
Aballinamion

Aballinamion

Sleeping with the Dark Lady of the Sith
Loyaler
Joined
Dec 4, 2017
Total posts
2,476
Awards
3
BR
Chips
245
S

Station_Master

Legend
Platinum Level
Joined
Oct 26, 2022
Total posts
1,134
Awards
1
GB
Chips
194
Representing Kx versus someone who has Kx. Is it correct? I don't think so against SB who isn't going to be defending light and will have plenty of Kx and Ax in their range.
He didnt know his opponent had Kx, he just happened to run into top of range. All opponents will have some top pair.

Classic case of overbluffing. There was no reason to play this low pair like this but after investing so much into the pot, the aggressor felt it was best to try to bluff a weak value hand. When I would've played more passively, he played aggressively having no means to try to represent whatever it was trying to represent. In my opinion, this is a poor gameplay style.

Not really, pretty sure this is a GTO thing to bluff some low.pairs. they dont have that much showdown value, can hit a nutted hand and can bluff when logical draws get there such as in this case. He will play QT, AK, JJ, KJ the same so has plenty of value.

I think the play is OK at higher stakes, even if it looks spewy at micros
 
pentazepam

pentazepam

Legend
Platinum Level
Joined
Oct 31, 2008
Total posts
1,493
Awards
3
SE
Chips
228
He didnt know his opponent had Kx, he just happened to run into top of range. All opponents will have some top pair.



Not really, pretty sure this is a GTO thing to bluff some low.pairs. they dont have that much showdown value, can hit a nutted hand and can bluff when logical draws get there such as in this case. He will play QT, AK, JJ, KJ the same so has plenty of value.

I think the play is OK at higher stakes, even if it looks spewy at micros
I agree with most of this.

Even if you don't play GTO this board is often a 100% continuation bet and after that, you have to decide if you want to give up or continue. Since the turn is a blank you are still ahead of some draws and can also put a lot of pressure on hands worse than a king. The ace on the river is also a perfect bluff card against a lot of players.
 
Mr_Kk13

Mr_Kk13

Enthusiast
Silver Level
Joined
Mar 1, 2019
Total posts
57
Chips
24
I have observed a trend where smalll-medium pocket pairs are getting bluffed like that the higher stakes you go in spots that you would snap check back in micro stakes. Even looking at this bluff I'm getting uncomfortable :p
But I play micros, so :p
 
Aballinamion

Aballinamion

Sleeping with the Dark Lady of the Sith
Loyaler
Joined
Dec 4, 2017
Total posts
2,476
Awards
3
BR
Chips
245
He didnt know his opponent had Kx, he just happened to run into top of range. All opponents will have some top pair.



Not really, pretty sure this is a GTO thing to bluff some low.pairs. they dont have that much showdown value, can hit a nutted hand and can bluff when logical draws get there such as in this case. He will play QT, AK, JJ, KJ the same so has plenty of value.

I think the play is OK at higher stakes, even if it looks spewy at micros
I think this is not a GTO thing and besides, I'm afraid many of our forum mates are pretty much biased only by this one perspective of GTO gameplay. This could lead to several mistakes in the long run. Allow me to explain myself: I don't understand why GTO had become a religion among poker players or why everything must pass to solvers, such as GTO Wizard. Personally, I like GTO a lot, I use it when I need it, I understand the foundation and the principles of GTO and have nothing against it, don't get me wrong, I'm just saying that many players are using GTO solvers too much.

Concerning this specific hand to defend my point of view: GTO has a logic, a way of working that balances our range whether we are playing for value or for bluff. In this particular hand we are discussing, one of the players has a baby pocket pair and as you said, it is trying to represent QT, AK, JJ, KJ, etc, and this logic seems weak.
Because if the players had at least one Jx, one Qx, Kx or Ax he could be doing the same (maybe). And the logic of bluffing using GTO is not only based on mathematics but it rests ultimately in the capacity our opponent has to fold: by bluffing a player that has no fold equity (as we observed), what is the point?
And I see a bunch of players say that because "we open from such position and we own some table image, we can bluff whatever hand we have", and I disagree. The hand proved itself to be a failure, because opponent had no fold equity and insta-called the aggressor's bluff.
The point is try to use these tools on our favor, when we know the opponent and we own the proper value/bluff range.
 
sibkaz

sibkaz

Rock Star
Platinum Level
Joined
Oct 27, 2023
Total posts
180
Awards
1
KZ
Chips
145
This is overkill...wanted to show two pairs or a flushdro ? You bet a lot.
 
Top