Bluffing

[KerouacsDog]

Raising 4xBB with 27os just because you can steal your opponents blind is a bluff. And if the blinds & antes are going to add a significant amount to your stack, then it does affect when you bluff. There's no point in blind stealing when there's no ante, and the blinds are 0.1% of your stack. But if by stealing the blinds of 1 limper and the SB & BB you take down 3500 chips into your 30,000 stack, that's an 11% boost.

In short, the size of the blinds in relation to your chipstack will certainly affect how much you bluff.

If I believe I can do a blind-steal bluff first hand of a tourney I will attempt it. low risk to me, and the blind that i steal means that when I get a killer hand later on, I have more chips to bet with. That's my philosophy, anyway. People are either cautious or loose first hand of a MTT, I like to identify who Im playing against early on.
KD

 

[Kenzie 96]

Al, bluffing is an important part of winning poker, except maybe at very low limit tables. 2 things, should be done for a purpose & should be done randomly. Haven't read the article Chris wrote on this for a long time but, like all his articles would highly recommend it.

 

[stormswa]

ugh

for starters: I never said I did limp in with AA....secondly, i do occasionally limp in with big pairs. Not often, because its -ev, but often enough that it keeps people on their heels. "oh, he limped with AA, so, he must be stupid" or i planned on limp / reraising, and it back-fired. More often, i raise with hands like 10♦10♠ rather than limp with them if I'm trying to throw someone off.... Either way, i attempt to randomize my play simply because *HELLO* It's a good thing to do. I also love how you move away from the fact my examples prove you wrong, and instead you insult me as a poker player. Nice going chief.

You're not understanding the basics of the language here stormswa. I gave you two (2) examples of how the language is worded different with the same meaning. You said its not even close... would it have made a difference had i said JJ instead of QQ? The comparative strength of QQ to AA is horrible anyways, but JJ is even worse. Its sometimes the right play to simply call a raise with JJ when it is NEVER right to simply call with aces unless you're trying to throw someone off. In both examples, I explained how the language says two different things, but means the same thing. Its akin to saying "The fox doesn't run fast" and "the fox runs slow" they mean virtually the same thing.

Finally: Yeah, sometimes i'll limp in with 10♣J♣ from EP.....hell, if the game is passive enough, i'll limp with as low as 6♣7♣. NOthing beats making the nuts for almost nothing. I play the table, and the people at it... Not the cards.. the cards are almost meaningless man.

Lets recap: Randomizing your play is a good thing...it makes you harder to read. Limping in with small suited connectors from any position in a passive game is okay, you don't understand the meaning of the words you type, and Styrofoam majored in English throughout college, and arguing semantics will get you no where, as you'll likely lose.

how did this get this far, I was just telling you what a professional poker player wrote about it. He wrote exactly what I said that mixing up play is playing different hands same ways and not same hands different ways.


I think we can just end this silly debate now that I think is pretty much done with.

 

[c9h13no3]

If I believe I can do a blind-steal bluff first hand of a tourney I will attempt it.

How can you get that kind of information on the first hand of a tournament? Also, the reward you stand to gain from stealing my blind is usually quite low that early. Thus, the risk isn't justified. Waiting until later in the tournament when you have more information on your opponents & there's an ante will almost always make more sense.

 

[stormswa]

yea

How can you get that kind of information on the first hand of a tournament? Also, the reward you stand to gain from stealing my blind is usually quite low that early. Thus, the risk isn't justified. Waiting until later in the tournament when you have more information on your opponents & there's an ante will almost always make more sense.

thats what I said earlier in thread. +rep for saying what I said.

 

[Styrofoam]

How can you get that kind of information on the first hand of a tournament? Also, the reward you stand to gain from stealing my blind is usually quite low that early. Thus, the risk isn't justified. Waiting until later in the tournament when you have more information on your opponents & there's an ante will almost always make more sense.

it is easy... if the checks around to you and you're in position, you can be reasonably sure that you can take the pot down.... on the first hand.... playing strong aggressive poker throughout the tourney is what wins it. Every chip matters.

 

[KerouacsDog]

How can you get that kind of information on the first hand of a tournament? Also, the reward you stand to gain from stealing my blind is usually quite low that early. Thus, the risk isn't justified. Waiting until later in the tournament when you have more information on your opponents & there's an ante will almost always make more sense.

i agree woith your second sentence entirely.
but, if i play my usual MTT i start with 2000 chips, with blinds 20/40. In the first half hour, Im willing to risk a quarter of my stack(500 chips) to identify, a)who Im up against, b)who are sharks, who are fish, and c) what styles people are, LAP, LAG, TAG, TAP, ETC. .
Poker is a lot about information, if I get that early, then I believe I have an advantage.
My biggest freeroll win is a 2000 player at Absolute, took me 6 hours to take it down, and that was purely down to a mixture of luck, instinct, reads, bluffs, LAG-play, TAG-play, and my chosen style, super-TAG. There was some skill involved, you dont beat 1999 freerollers without some skill.
KD

 

[KerouacsDog]

how did this get this far, I was just telling you what a professional poker player wrote about it. He wrote exactly what I said that mixing up play is playing different hands same ways and not same hands different ways.


I think we can just end this silly debate now that I think is pretty much done with.

if we're gonna talk about pro's and how they play, then do you follow Jennifer Tilly's(wowee!) advice of,'displaying cleavage to distract the other players'?
Let's not throw pro's into this argument, A pro is just a poker player with more money than us.
KD

 

[stormswa]

hell yea

if we're gonna talk about pro's and how they play, then do you follow Jennifer Tilly's(wowee!) advice of,'displaying cleavage to distract the other players'?
Let's not throw pro's into this argument, A pro is just a poker player with more money than us.
KD

yes if I had big breatisisisisis I would go naked if they let me, poker is about one thing and that is winning money. I would use anything they allow me to take advantage.

 

[KerouacsDog]

yes if I had big breatisisisisis I would go naked if they let me, poker is about one thing and that is winning money. I would use anything they allow me to take advantage.

ah, I have big breasts, but they rest on my beer gut quite nicely, and they distract in a different way.................ie a man with breasts, what kind of freak is he!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[c9h13no3]

Poker is a lot about information, if I get that early, then I believe I have an advantage.

There are cheaper ways to get information, like waiting. Also, losing 500 chips to get that advantage is what I'd call a disadvantage if every chip counts.

 

[joosebuck]

refer to styros sig to see if you are on the same level as my type of randomizing plays.