Which tactic is more lethal?

Reload

Reload

Visionary
Joined
Sep 11, 2015
Total posts
786
Awards
7
Would like to hear your opinions: what do you consider more dangerous to other players, bluffing with nothing in hands to win, or pretending you don't have anything, with for example, pocket aces preflop?
 
DougPkrMonsta

DougPkrMonsta

Visionary
Joined
Jul 7, 2016
Total posts
914
Awards
15
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! :D
 
KozakAlex

KozakAlex

Visionary
Joined
Nov 26, 2017
Total posts
979
Awards
1
Would like to hear your opinions: what do you consider more dangerous to other players, bluffing with nothing in hands to win, or pretending you don't have anything, with for example, pocket aces preflop?



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

infonazar

Legend
Loyaler
Joined
Oct 10, 2017
Total posts
3,062
Awards
1
UA
Would like to hear your opinions: what do you consider more dangerous to other players, bluffing with nothing in hands to win, or pretending you don't have anything, with for example, pocket aces preflop?


Both of these tactics are doomed to failure. But if I had to choose, I would take the second option.
 
LuckyBundy13

LuckyBundy13

Visionary
Joined
Jan 12, 2013
Total posts
512
What the flop? Is this the a real question?? If it is, why are you asking this question? Is there some sort of scenario where this happened? It's a vague question, not all situations are the same.
 
christmasscorpion

christmasscorpion

Rock Star
Joined
Feb 9, 2019
Total posts
406
Hello, i think it's more dangerous to pretend with AA that you don't have anything than to try to bluff with nothing in your hands.
 
ASMautoneJr

ASMautoneJr

Visionary
Joined
Dec 1, 2017
Total posts
533
Awards
1
Would like to hear your opinions: what do you consider more dangerous to other players, bluffing with nothing in hands to win, or pretending you don't have anything, with for example, pocket aces preflop?


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
 
Andrei Korolev

Andrei Korolev

Legend
Joined
Sep 16, 2015
Total posts
3,014
In the first example,you need to know who to bluff against...In the second case,I will not call,only raise OPP re-raise or all in...
 
Z

zerosalex

Visionary
Joined
Jun 22, 2020
Total posts
544
Awards
1
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.
 
L

Lucky_Shark

Rock Star
Joined
Sep 11, 2020
Total posts
290
Pretending you don't have anything, with for example, pocket aces preflop. Because a lot of people bluff in poker, especially at low limits, and we benefit from being bluffed.
 
SPANKYSN

SPANKYSN

Legend
Joined
Sep 5, 2007
Total posts
1,416
Awards
6
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.
 
Newzooozooo

Newzooozooo

Legend
Joined
Apr 22, 2018
Total posts
2,095
Awards
1
UA
Hi.
Obviously, bluffing with nothing in your hands you lose faster than in the second variant, which you suggested.
Good luck.
 
C

c0rnBr34d

Visionary
Joined
May 6, 2019
Total posts
991
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.
 
Akinled

Akinled

Enthusiast
Joined
Oct 26, 2019
Total posts
87
Interesting tactic. Not judging at all. I've always learned you should do the opposite (or at least something different) of what others do.
 
Rob Hobson

Rob Hobson

Legend
Loyaler
Joined
Feb 2, 2012
Total posts
3,677
Awards
2
BR
Fold, "fold and live to fold again", get out if you don't match the flop.
 
7

77ecos

Visionary
Joined
Aug 2, 2015
Total posts
694
Awards
2
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:jd4::jd4::jd4::jd4:
 
Threshold2122

Threshold2122

Rock Star
Joined
Sep 28, 2020
Total posts
178
I prefer to trap players and let them do the betting for me

My skill set isn't good enough for bluffing just yet but that's one for the future for sure

Good luck out there
 
INISHTE

INISHTE

Rock Star
Joined
May 23, 2021
Total posts
408
Awards
1
BO
Hi Friend.

Pretend, because that way you can catch and take out someone who is bragging with nothing or who is inspired by the winning streak.
 
mardi1987

mardi1987

Rock Star
Joined
Jun 21, 2018
Total posts
229
Awards
3
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
 
pavel1111111

pavel1111111

Legend
Joined
Dec 22, 2014
Total posts
1,544
Awards
21
RO
of course pretending you have nothing and having it is much more dangerous, bluffs are easier to digest :)
 
ga25x

ga25x

Visionary
Joined
Mar 5, 2020
Total posts
748
Awards
1
You have to change the way you play all the time.
 
elJenio8

elJenio8

Rock Star
Joined
Nov 18, 2019
Total posts
309
There is no tactics. You play the personality of the other players, sometimes i dont know what im gonna do when i sit on a table
 
C

Corey6669

Rising Star
Joined
Nov 6, 2021
Total posts
2
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.
 
B

budweiser74777

Rock Star
Joined
Feb 20, 2021
Total posts
333
Awards
1
well it all depends on the stack and the structure of the tournament !! but to sum it up, check-raise ...
 
F

firerain

Rock Star
Joined
Dec 27, 2016
Total posts
175
Awards
2
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.
 
Top