Harrington's %10 bluffing rule

[ChuckTs]

Without trying to sound rude, I'm not quite sure what point you're trying to prove, JD.

While your (Harrington's) example is obviously right, it's different from mine. The difference being that we're being put in a call/fold decision on the river, not the flop. On the river, we don't have to factor in our % to win with each hand group - it's pretty much just win/lose, and we decide whether or not to call based on our odds. (We could factor in multi-level thinking, ie he's betting small enough to give 9:1 to try and induce a call with a monster, etc etc, but I'm ignoring this for simplicity).

I am applying the %10 rule to a specific (and different) example, but I don't think the logic should change. If there's still a %10 chance of him bluffing, then we should be calling the river getting 9:1 or better if our hand can beat a bluff. There's no real structured HA needed.

Example:

You raise with A♠K♠ in late position, and the nitty big blind calls you.

You both see a flop of 6♠7♠2♥. He checks, you bet, he raises, and you call. (again, ignore actions up to river for simplicity's sake)

Turn comes 2♦, and you both check.

River comes J♦, and villain makes a bet that's giving you >9:1 odds.

You suspect he's on a bluff at least %10 of the time, and has something that beats you (8♣8♠ for example) the remaining percent. You should call based on the fact that your pot odds are giving you a good price (right?)

Anyways, I'm not really sure where this is heading, anyways The hand I'm explaining is really theoretical and doesn't apply much. My original question is pretty much asking whether the rule is concrete for every single example, or if it's just a guideline since it applies most of the time.

 

[Jack Daniels]

Sorry, guess I replied to your OP, not what it drifted off into with various hypotheticals tacked on to prove points.

Well simply put then, if you're not looking for hand analysis, then no the 10% rule doesn't simply apply to every hand. My point was that you are taking the 10% rule out of context, plain and simple. It is not a rule in and of itself, it is part of hand analysis. That's why you can use 10% on a conservative opponent and higher % on looser ones.

And yes, you can still apply hand analysis on the river. Running late for work, I'll check back later. Until then, I'd say reread that section again.

 

[pigpen02]

Chuck, you used the same analysis tool that Jack did, just with a different situation. Your analysis was 10% bluff, 90% pair or better. So, it is 10%*100% + 90%*0% or 10% to win. 9:1 odds is just break even.

 

[dj11]

Chuck, I'm in the camp that will call almost any 9:1 bet. My decision would be based on my holdings. If I were holding small suited connectors against the flop you described, but still only a draw, of course its automatic, but if I got JT or QJ I might not call 9:1, but with high card possibilities I think in your example it is automatic call.

Poker has math , but it also has psychology. WIth a flop like that if you haven't seen villain get aggressive with babies or small suited connectors, then it looks to be a bluff.

I took the Harrington section to encourage the reader to give credence to the real, but remote (he's estimating 10%) possibility that you are getting bluffed. With a 9-1 bet, It wasn't much of an effort to pull off that bluff tho.

But that brings up another possibility. With such a situation, could you really even call it a bluff? I can't hardly imagine anyone trying to steal a pot without at least an ACE in hand.... Oh wait, someone we know did recently try to do that..... But he didn't leave 9:1 odds on the table so nevermind.

In your example there are only two sane possibilities, and they are WAWB either someone is betting his paired 2's or they are betting big unpaired unmatched cards. Well you beat the 2nd scenario, so that puts you in the 50% hand range with 9:1 odds. Gee, decisions, decisions.....:joyman:

 

[ChuckTs]

Well I think we've all kind of agreed now. It basically all comes back to this:

I'm guessing that's an average for people you have little or no info on.

I think the %10 rule applies to most situations unless you've got a few 1000 hands on a player and can narrow your opponent's range beyond that %10 in a particular spot.

Anyways, thanks for the responses everyone. Didn't expect this thread to go so far. Good stuff

 

[pigpen02]

Harrington says that the MINIMUM you should use in your bluff estimate is 10%; that even rocks bluff that much. You could probably use a higher figure from what you see in a single session with a LAG.