Harrington's Law of Bluffing: the probability that your opponent is bluffing when he shoves a big bet in the pot is always at least 10 percent. It may be higher, depending on the opponent, but it won't be lower.

It makes sense to me. What do you think?

its actually 50% because your opponent either is or isnt bluffing.

Originally Posted by ohshootmybad

its actually 50% because your opponent either is or isnt bluffing.

If you take one piece out of a Skittles pack without looking, what is the probability of it being green? According to your theory it should be 50%, because it either is green or isn't.
In reality, the probability is 20% because only 1 in every 5 pieces is green, the rest having different colors.

Originally Posted by zinzir

Harrington's Law of Bluffing: the probability that your opponent is bluffing when he shoves a big bet in the pot is always at least 10 percent. It may be higher, depending on the opponent, but it won't be lower.

Boy, I don't know that I would make this leap. How long ago did Harrington write this? 10+ years ago? The game is constantly changing and we have to know our opponents better than this. Maybe he is saying that he assumes that an overbet is a bluff 10% of the time, and that is how he plays.

If a player is playing a GTO style in today's poker world, the player needs some overbet bluffs in his repertoire so that when he has a great hand he can overbet that, without getting a fold. When I see a large overbet, I become immediately suspicious about why the player isn't trying to get a call with his great hand, rather than seemingly asking for a fold.

Balance is key in today's poker. Is 10/90 enough for balance? Of course Dan says 10% is the minimum value, not an absolute value. So if this is true, what is more important is how to determine the usable value.

Good luck and God Bless.

It would be really difficult for someone playing a GTO strategy to have a bluffing range less than 10%. Consider what the bet size must be for your opponent to be indifferent to calling/folding. You would need to be betting less than 1/8th of the pot for your bluffing range to be less than 10%. Would that be considered a big bet? No. If anything, GTO makes this point even more clear.

And, although it has been a while, I am pretty sure that was part of the point he was making. It is almost certainly true that people do not bluff enough with big bets, but 10% is pretty far from enough.

in today's world just make it 20%, but definitely it can't be more than that, right

Originally Posted by zinzir

Harrington's Law of Bluffing: the probability that your opponent is bluffing when he shoves a big bet in the pot is always at least 10 percent. It may be higher, depending on the opponent, but it won't be lower.

It makes sense to me. What do you think?

So, most of the time when your opponent shoves a big bet in the pot - they have a good hand.

But why couldn't you have a tight player that bluffs only 5% of the time? 1 in 20?

Not sure where Harrington got the 10% number. Seems too rigid.

Knowing the approximate probability is of course good, but each case must be considered separately.it may happen that the opponent may bluff three times in a row, so the statistics do not give accurate information at this time.

Originally Posted by Poker_Mike

So, most of the time when your opponent shoves a big bet in the pot - they have a good hand.

But why couldn't you have a tight player that bluffs only 5% of the time? 1 in 20?

Not sure where Harrington got the 10% number. Seems too rigid.

I am pretty sure I first came across this in his tournament books. You can read most of his logic and understanding there. The main point is that people, even conservative players, know they need to bluff and do. The probability that they could be bluffing in a big spot should always be considered at least 10%. This is because there is a tendency for people to not assign bluffing ranges. Against certain players, this chance is almost certainly higher. It should not be lower. There is an assumption that your opponent plays reasonably well. When you are considering the range of hands an opponent would make a big bet with, and your equity against that range, the 10% bluffs will basically give you a little bit of an equity boost that can shift you from a fold to a call, if it's close. Really, if it's that close that 5% bluffs would be a fold and 10% bluffs is a call, then you could probably flip a coin to make the decision.

Now, I am primarily a cash game person. In those games, the 10% minimum rule is almost certainly important to remember. There are spots where people do not bluff nearly enough. But, even in most of those spots there are some bluffs. Against good players, there will be more than 10% bluffs in most spots. The reason for this is because then you can always fold to his big bets and he will never get paid off on the big bets, if they aren't bluffing. The better you and your opponents are, the more you need to get to the optimal bluffing amount for your bets which is usually higher than 10%. If you're betting 1/2 pot on the end, you need to be bluffing 25% of the time to make it so your opponent can't just fold all the time profitably,

In most games people aren't not bluffing nearly enough, or they are bluffing way too much. You just need to watch what they are doing and use that to make your decision. In a lot of spots, 10% chance of it being a bluff doesn't change the fact that you're folding.

Anyway, 10% is really, really low for the odds someone is bluffing. You need to draw a line somewhere for a minimum and that's as good a spot as any.

I think this is true in many cases, but I can also think of certain scenarios (especially with pros playing high stakes on tv) where x-player is almost never bluffing based on how they played the hand. In this case, you will usually see the good players just give them credit for the hand and move on.

Generally speaking though, I think most players will bluff 10% or more and this is exponentially true in micro-stakes and freerolls for sure.

Hey.
Based on its little experience of freerolls and micro-limits, this statement has a right to exist. For other limits, this may not be the case.

Depends of the position and reputation on the table i think