DougPkrMonsta
Visionary
Silver Level
Depends on how aggressive and tight/loose your opponents are.
Make adjustments after seeing how they are playing, i.e. slowplay occasionally against aggressive players and don't bluff people who call too much.
I think value-betting will be your most lethal tactic in small stakes games.
Good luck!
Make adjustments after seeing how they are playing, i.e. slowplay occasionally against aggressive players and don't bluff people who call too much.
I think value-betting will be your most lethal tactic in small stakes games.
Good luck!
KozakAlex
Visionary
Bronze Level
The most dangerous thing is to change tactics during the game. Your opponents are used to you. And you change the game and surprise your opponents very much. For example, you can reset and then raise several hands. But to do this, you need to read your opponents. Poker is actually a very difficult game.
infonazar
Legend
Loyaler
Both of these tactics are doomed to failure. But if I had to choose, I would take the second option.
ASMautoneJr
Visionary
Bronze Level
the coolest thing is to be able to bluff, I think the most dangerous thing is to pretend you have a pair of aces .... oAUHE OUIHE AOUEh OAUEH OAUEH oaEHoUA
Z
zerosalex
Visionary
Bronze Level
depend who is at the tables. if you have a person that likes to raise all the time I would like to limp in with aces hoping he raise so I can try to act like bluffing him at some point. if you are playing against tight player and he check check to you and you have nothing you can try to bluff and will probably get away with it.
SPANKYSN
Legend
Bronze Level
Both strategies are doomed to failure over the long haul. Yes, both could yield good results from time to time, but overall, bluffs with nothing get picked off and crushed, and under-playing aces usually reduces your ability to pick up valuable chips, and may allow players with garbage hands to stay in and beat you with a low two pair, straight or flush...better to take a small win than turn aces into a huge loss.
C
c0rnBr34d
Visionary
Silver Level
As others have suggested I think this depends on at least two things, probably more but I'll try to keep it from getting obscenely long. The frequency at which these tactics are used, and the opponents you are facing.
Since you used tactic instead of strategy I'll assume that we aren't playing these hands this way most of the time but instead doing it less often as an exploit in a situation that we think will yield good results.
As for the opponents part, against nittier, fit or fold players having more bluffs will generate more folds than they should and thus more profits. I think in general the strategy can win lots of small pots that add up quickly but when facing resistance can quickly cause us to lose a big pot. There may be some select spots where we can steal a big pot on a bad run out for our opponents likely holdings as well. Against these typically more fit/fold or MUBSy players this tactic will be more successful. Against the more aggressive or maniacal players, disguising the strength of our hand and letting them barrel off at the board will be the more lethal strategy as it will be more difficult to bluff these types of players.
As far as which tactic is more lethal, that is hard to quantify since they are largely player and situation dependent. In general it may be more likely that an aggressive player will continue to bet at a pot, making it grow, and potentially play for stacks more often. If we are bluffing, in order for our bluff to work we have to get the opponent to fold so we can't be playing for stacks. So given that the pots will be larger in the slow played hands and we are using these tactics at low frequency my best guess, all things being equal, is that slow playing a monster would be more profitable. But all things are never equal lol. This assumes we are equally successful in getting our bluffs through and folding our strong hands on bad boards. If we go to extremes however and hypothesize that Player A will always jam turn and Player B will always fold turn to a jam then it becomes more profitable to bluff since Player A will sometimes have a monster or get there on the river and Player B is folding everything except the nuts I guess (which is very hard to have). In real life people tend to make notice your slow play or your bluffs and slow down or make a stand eventually though.
Since you used tactic instead of strategy I'll assume that we aren't playing these hands this way most of the time but instead doing it less often as an exploit in a situation that we think will yield good results.
As for the opponents part, against nittier, fit or fold players having more bluffs will generate more folds than they should and thus more profits. I think in general the strategy can win lots of small pots that add up quickly but when facing resistance can quickly cause us to lose a big pot. There may be some select spots where we can steal a big pot on a bad run out for our opponents likely holdings as well. Against these typically more fit/fold or MUBSy players this tactic will be more successful. Against the more aggressive or maniacal players, disguising the strength of our hand and letting them barrel off at the board will be the more lethal strategy as it will be more difficult to bluff these types of players.
As far as which tactic is more lethal, that is hard to quantify since they are largely player and situation dependent. In general it may be more likely that an aggressive player will continue to bet at a pot, making it grow, and potentially play for stacks more often. If we are bluffing, in order for our bluff to work we have to get the opponent to fold so we can't be playing for stacks. So given that the pots will be larger in the slow played hands and we are using these tactics at low frequency my best guess, all things being equal, is that slow playing a monster would be more profitable. But all things are never equal lol. This assumes we are equally successful in getting our bluffs through and folding our strong hands on bad boards. If we go to extremes however and hypothesize that Player A will always jam turn and Player B will always fold turn to a jam then it becomes more profitable to bluff since Player A will sometimes have a monster or get there on the river and Player B is folding everything except the nuts I guess (which is very hard to have). In real life people tend to make notice your slow play or your bluffs and slow down or make a stand eventually though.
7
77ecos
Visionary
Bronze Level
I think bluffing is better as long as you know what you are doing, it is not bluffing for bluffing, you do it knowing that he is going to fold the hand because you consider that he does not have a hand to call your bet, and that you can always do, instead pretend that you have nothing with a pair of aces it will happen few times, that is why the first option is more lethal
mardi1987
Rock Star
Bronze Level
Since the question is what is more dangerous for others, in my opinion it is pretending that you don't have anything with AA preflop. At the same time it's more dangerous for you if your opponent hits something on the flop
C
Corey6669
Rising Star
Bronze Level
Out of the two choices I've had more luck with checking a good hand way more than bluffing when playing online especially on small stakes games. I think the more at stake the better chances you will have with bluffing. I also feel that checking a good hand can cost you as much as bluffing if it's not the nuts. You may let someone catch up to you and it happens a lot when playing small stakes online.
F
firerain
Rock Star
Bronze Level
I would agree on a bluff with nothing with good for the tight-aggressive player since the most time the bluff will get through unless facing maniac\calling station. I would not under rep Aces unless you are closing the action against the aggro player.