S3mper
Poker Not Checkers
Loyaler
Daniel is "The One Who Knocks"
Michael Paler
Legend
Silver Level
I think he was just doing a cheesy impersonation of someone. Which sucks without a reference to whom it is, and makes him look and sound a little wacky. I have noticed him "go black" when he is around an African American. Check out the first season/episode of "the big game" sponsored by pokerstars. It was pretty horrible. Uh oh! Black guy at the table! I gotta be black! Suddenly, he is Snoop Dogg. I cringed. He actually asked the guy who his favorite rap singer was, just assuming the guy liked rap. Why would he assume that? Hmmm.... So, maybe there was a cheesy tough guy in the studio while he was recording that vid.
Speaking of, I'm sure I know what 'ol Dogg would say; "I don't know, man. All you white people talking like black people sound alike to me" (Comedy central roast)
Michael Paler
Legend
Silver Level
Ok, now the answer to the question...
Sorry, I got side tracked by a strange Daniel Negreanu video....
Look, you might be able to play cash and never bluff. Maybe. But if you only play the nuts or bet/call only when you have a hand, that is a BIG tell, and you will be bluffed, constantly. Your hand is like an open book. Plus, and even worse, you will not make any money. They will simply fold, knowing you are a nit and will not call or bet without a real good hand.
I would say it's almost impossible to make it very far into an MTT without bluffing. You simply might never get a decent hand, decent flop. So, if you don't bluff, you will get ante/blinded out of the game.
That's the funny thing about the C-bet. I would say maybe 60% of C-bets are bluffs. Many will Cbet any flop. Many more will call every one. However, therein lies a problem...
Some players start calling every post flop C-bet to see if you really have a hand. So, then you have to fire another bullet on the turn. Then they fold.
Then, they catch on, start calling your turn bet to see if you really have a hand, so then you have to fire a third bullet on the river. Then they fold.
Then, they catch on to that, so they start calling your river bet to see if you really have a hand, then you win by having Ace or King high, or hitting your kicker on the river, and....they wish they would not have called all those C-bets!
Sometimes you get caught in this way. You Cbet every street and a guy who flopped bottom pair will just call you down. The upside is, you were in control all the time, even though you lost. You controlled how much you lost. Now you know the next time you actually flop a real good hand, this calling station is going to give it all back.
It happens to me all the time. They LOL at beating my AK with bottom pair. Until I 3x preflop again with something else, like 7-8 suited, flop a set, and they call me down with bottom pair again. Then, I can ROFLMAO.
I just played a Fun SNG and found a player typing in the chatbox
"I never bluff"
How many % of true credit on this chat box message do put hime on?
Myself 100% don't believe in him!
I saw a lot lot of so honest play, who bluff sometimes!
Just want to know , does anyone "NEVER" bluff playing poker?
Sorry, I got side tracked by a strange Daniel Negreanu video....
Look, you might be able to play cash and never bluff. Maybe. But if you only play the nuts or bet/call only when you have a hand, that is a BIG tell, and you will be bluffed, constantly. Your hand is like an open book. Plus, and even worse, you will not make any money. They will simply fold, knowing you are a nit and will not call or bet without a real good hand.
I would say it's almost impossible to make it very far into an MTT without bluffing. You simply might never get a decent hand, decent flop. So, if you don't bluff, you will get ante/blinded out of the game.
That's the funny thing about the C-bet. I would say maybe 60% of C-bets are bluffs. Many will Cbet any flop. Many more will call every one. However, therein lies a problem...
Some players start calling every post flop C-bet to see if you really have a hand. So, then you have to fire another bullet on the turn. Then they fold.
Then, they catch on, start calling your turn bet to see if you really have a hand, so then you have to fire a third bullet on the river. Then they fold.
Then, they catch on to that, so they start calling your river bet to see if you really have a hand, then you win by having Ace or King high, or hitting your kicker on the river, and....they wish they would not have called all those C-bets!
Sometimes you get caught in this way. You Cbet every street and a guy who flopped bottom pair will just call you down. The upside is, you were in control all the time, even though you lost. You controlled how much you lost. Now you know the next time you actually flop a real good hand, this calling station is going to give it all back.
It happens to me all the time. They LOL at beating my AK with bottom pair. Until I 3x preflop again with something else, like 7-8 suited, flop a set, and they call me down with bottom pair again. Then, I can ROFLMAO.
S3mper
Poker Not Checkers
Loyaler
I watched season1 of the Big Game and I noticed Daniel change his talking, also that season was very painful to watch considering the Loose Cannon was awful at least played awful. I felt bad for Phil hellmuth for losing that one pot where they ran it 4 times and he lost 3/4 with the dominating hand.
Michael Paler
Legend
Silver Level
Funny you should say that....
I think Phil felt bad after clearly slow rolling a fish; putting a play on a weak player is something he should know better than to do. However, if you look at the guys hand, his was actually in a better position than Phil! For those of you who do not know what we are jabbering about, here it is: PH/Phil Hellmuth, LC/Loose cannon;
First, Phil 3-bet OOP with a weak ace. Not horrible, if you don't get trapped in some way. I think he knew (correct read!) that Tony G is raising with garbage. However, with a LC and two good players left to act, it was a horrible 3 bet. Sure enough, Loose Cannon (LC) picks up KsKc. HE FAILS to 4-bet! Big mistake, as it gave everyone else great pot odds to flat call PH's 3bet.
Mistakes:
PH 1.0
LC 1.0
Then, Phil commits a cardinal sin...he fancy talks (semi slo rolls) someone who could not possibly understand the dynamics. After the LC bets out, PH continues to talk to the guy (Why? You know you got the nuts!! Why Phil, why?????) Phil smiles, then goes all in. The LC insta calls. Maybe he just did not think PH would 3-bet with an A-9? Maybe he just could not lay those kings down. But It should have seemed fishy. If he had trips, what would he do? 1: Check the flop. 2: Wait for fish to bet. 3: Shove. I just don't think the guy saw it coming. Phil tried to take advantage of the fish, correctly, just got screwed in the process. Oh, Phil, why?
Mistakes:
PH 2.0 (I count the slow roll as a mistake, because I think getting called out on it by the others made him feel bad. This would lead to a BIG MISTAKE!)
LC 2.0 (Failed to see the trap)
Then (maybe he thought he could out math the guy, who knows? Probably guilt) he asks if he wants to run it 3 times, then 4!!
The board has 9h-10s-9s. This gives Phil 6 outs to a full (with another 10 or an ace). However, the LC has some outs as well. He has both a backdoor straight, a backdoor flush, and 2 kings. (Phil Laak joins the bash PH bandwagon). LC gladly accepts the 4 times PH then offers him.
Now, here is where it get interesting. Since PH already had the guy SOOOOO dominated, he did not need to improve over his trips! So, improving to a better hand was just not needed. So, technically, he really has -0- outs! PH has already made the best hand. This means the LC has all the outs. If PH gets his ace, but the guy spikes a K, no go for PH. He should not have offered to run it 4 times based on this alone. The first run, this is just what happens. Phil hits his ace on the river, for an unnecessary full house. Then, it gets ugly. Nothing that the LC can possibly improve to can be beaten by trips. PH gets math-screwed.
Second run: Sure enough, LC gets his King. Now, PH is drawing dead. LC continues to show his fish-ness by saying "Oh, damn, I said 4 times, or I would have just got 1/2 my money back! That's ok Phil, you got outs (?!?)
Third run: Sure enough, LC gets runner runner flush cards. PH is drawing almost dead again. Now it's two wins to one. PH looks like he could barf.
Fourth run: LC gets one Q (now his outs over trips zooms), and then of all things, the fourth and final K!!! PH throws up in his mouth, who could blame him?
LC wins 3 out of four, almost doubling up, PH goes ballistic. Tony G berates PH (kind of the kettle calling the pot black, frankly).
So, by running it 4 times, PH should have at least split the pot (that 4th K was a one outer), still; with the strength of the guys hand, PH allowed it to be run 4 times with a hand vulnerable to many a backdoor out. Had he just ran it twice!
Mistakes:
PH 3.0 - Preflop 3 bet w weak ace into a fish and 3 pros/Putting a fancy play on an weak player/guilted into (Or greedy thinking) running it 4 times
LC 3.0 - Preflop flat call a 3-bet w KK on the button no less/C-betting and getting pot committed on a paired board into a possible wayyyy better hand, in this case obvious trips/running it 4 times, essentially the same as running it twice. Actually, he should have only got 1/4 pot with that one! I'm sure that is what PH was thinking.
It looked to me like the blind leading the blind. PH should have known better. I felt bad for him nonetheless. They really bashed him. Tony G should talk..... Thanks for bringing this up S3mper, it's a good learning example!!!
I think Phil felt bad after clearly slow rolling a fish; putting a play on a weak player is something he should know better than to do. However, if you look at the guys hand, his was actually in a better position than Phil! For those of you who do not know what we are jabbering about, here it is: PH/Phil Hellmuth, LC/Loose cannon;
First, Phil 3-bet OOP with a weak ace. Not horrible, if you don't get trapped in some way. I think he knew (correct read!) that Tony G is raising with garbage. However, with a LC and two good players left to act, it was a horrible 3 bet. Sure enough, Loose Cannon (LC) picks up KsKc. HE FAILS to 4-bet! Big mistake, as it gave everyone else great pot odds to flat call PH's 3bet.
Mistakes:
PH 1.0
LC 1.0
Then, Phil commits a cardinal sin...he fancy talks (semi slo rolls) someone who could not possibly understand the dynamics. After the LC bets out, PH continues to talk to the guy (Why? You know you got the nuts!! Why Phil, why?????) Phil smiles, then goes all in. The LC insta calls. Maybe he just did not think PH would 3-bet with an A-9? Maybe he just could not lay those kings down. But It should have seemed fishy. If he had trips, what would he do? 1: Check the flop. 2: Wait for fish to bet. 3: Shove. I just don't think the guy saw it coming. Phil tried to take advantage of the fish, correctly, just got screwed in the process. Oh, Phil, why?
Mistakes:
PH 2.0 (I count the slow roll as a mistake, because I think getting called out on it by the others made him feel bad. This would lead to a BIG MISTAKE!)
LC 2.0 (Failed to see the trap)
Then (maybe he thought he could out math the guy, who knows? Probably guilt) he asks if he wants to run it 3 times, then 4!!
The board has 9h-10s-9s. This gives Phil 6 outs to a full (with another 10 or an ace). However, the LC has some outs as well. He has both a backdoor straight, a backdoor flush, and 2 kings. (Phil Laak joins the bash PH bandwagon). LC gladly accepts the 4 times PH then offers him.
Now, here is where it get interesting. Since PH already had the guy SOOOOO dominated, he did not need to improve over his trips! So, improving to a better hand was just not needed. So, technically, he really has -0- outs! PH has already made the best hand. This means the LC has all the outs. If PH gets his ace, but the guy spikes a K, no go for PH. He should not have offered to run it 4 times based on this alone. The first run, this is just what happens. Phil hits his ace on the river, for an unnecessary full house. Then, it gets ugly. Nothing that the LC can possibly improve to can be beaten by trips. PH gets math-screwed.
Second run: Sure enough, LC gets his King. Now, PH is drawing dead. LC continues to show his fish-ness by saying "Oh, damn, I said 4 times, or I would have just got 1/2 my money back! That's ok Phil, you got outs (?!?)
Third run: Sure enough, LC gets runner runner flush cards. PH is drawing almost dead again. Now it's two wins to one. PH looks like he could barf.
Fourth run: LC gets one Q (now his outs over trips zooms), and then of all things, the fourth and final K!!! PH throws up in his mouth, who could blame him?
LC wins 3 out of four, almost doubling up, PH goes ballistic. Tony G berates PH (kind of the kettle calling the pot black, frankly).
So, by running it 4 times, PH should have at least split the pot (that 4th K was a one outer), still; with the strength of the guys hand, PH allowed it to be run 4 times with a hand vulnerable to many a backdoor out. Had he just ran it twice!
Mistakes:
PH 3.0 - Preflop 3 bet w weak ace into a fish and 3 pros/Putting a fancy play on an weak player/guilted into (Or greedy thinking) running it 4 times
LC 3.0 - Preflop flat call a 3-bet w KK on the button no less/C-betting and getting pot committed on a paired board into a possible wayyyy better hand, in this case obvious trips/running it 4 times, essentially the same as running it twice. Actually, he should have only got 1/4 pot with that one! I'm sure that is what PH was thinking.
It looked to me like the blind leading the blind. PH should have known better. I felt bad for him nonetheless. They really bashed him. Tony G should talk..... Thanks for bringing this up S3mper, it's a good learning example!!!
Enzo1089
Rock Star
Silver Level
Personally, I only ever bluff when playing live. I barely ever do so while playing online, just because it is far too easy to get called when doing so. When playing live, there is the whole element of being able to read each player, and whenever I bluff live, it more often ends up in my favor. I've tried bluffing online, and it barely ever works out, so I don't usually do it.
Aleksei
Legend
Silver Level
Not bluffing ever is exploitable. An observant opponent will notice and bluff you off pots, and then fold to all aggression by you and refuse to pay off your good hands.
OLP is all about statistical frequencies. You want to bluff when you know that your opponent is folding a specific spot too much, or for balance so people will pay your good hands off more frequently.
guppystew
Rock Star
Silver Level
lmao, this is the best way to bluff
Enzo1089
Rock Star
Silver Level
Thanks for the tip, I never really thought about it that way. I will keep that in mind next time I play online (or live for that matter).