Thoughts On A Bluff

[irishguy 14]

Yes, it doesn't limit him to big hands, but it does not do anything to exclude them either. The best part about making the same raise everytime is that it gives away no information.You made the point right there that everyone else in the post has been trying to make. You cannot arbirtarily decide that he's weak when he is making standard preflop raises and standard continuation bets.

Is it not possible to exclude big hands from his range based on his flop play compared to the previous examples? Surely he could be switching it up but would this not stand out to you?

[irishguy 14]

Not sure what you're saying here. My point was someone responding to a forum post is likely to be better than the avg player, so what *they* would do in Villains shoes is diff. than what your typical opponent is likely to do. So putting yourself in Hero's shoes and seeing what you would do is giving way too much credit to your opponent. This just shows that you don't see my point. I don't care if you're 120yrs old and have been drinking since you were 5, it doesn't change the physical reactions your body and brain have when your drunk. Maybe it means you need more alcohol to get drunk, but once you're there (and you said you were, multiple times) you're going to make bad decisions and think they're good. You're going to make bad assumptions and bad reads and think you're locked in the zone. You're going to play crap like Q4, get lucky and then when you're sober convince yourself that it was the right move based on bad information. Or you'll play the same crap, lose a few buy-ins and wake up and say "man I was so drunk I played like a total donk and lost a few buy-ins, haha". You mentioned at some point you have no money management, well the first step to fix that would be to stop playing while drinking heavily. If you don't get that, its not a different style its stupidity.Given that you were drunk, we can't give much credit to your read; which based on the info you gave would be a pretty specific read even if you were sober. You saw Villain table 2-3 good hands with a certain betting pattern, and fold 1-2 hands with another one and tagged the two betting patterns as really strong and really weak. Who was he playing against in those other hands? What did he have when he folded? how strong were the strong hands? Is it possible he's playing a strong hand differently b/c he's shown a couple good hands with the same betting pattern and he wants to get paid off? Maybe he's drunk too and is changing his style just b/c. With only 4-5 hands history, you drunk and what his betting indicates, there is no way on earth short of seeing his cards that you can say (with enough certainty to show a profit) that he has a weak hand and will fold to a push. The fact that he did fold just reinforces a poor decision, like drawing to a 1-outer and hitting.you saw him hit 2-3 good hands and fold 2 others. It is perfectly reasonable to get 4-5 hands in a row that are good enough to play without being a total donk. You don't know what hands he folded, it could have been complete misses, weak draws, mid-pair. Therefore the only info you have is that you're reasonably sure the flop didn't hit him hard. He could have anything else in the world. Do you know he'll fold a draw? 2-pr? TPLK? Maybe he's a calling station when he has any piece of the flop. Maybe he'll call down with 2-pr no matter what the action. You keep saying you had reasons for making the moves you did and I'm disputing that you had a reason, I'm saying that the information behind that reason is sh-t. Its 5 hands of history while drunk. Its the opposite of seeing monsters, you're making up your mind he has nothing and will fold based on very little evidence.Perhaps I was a little harsh, I have a New England ball-busting cynical sense of humor. If it was really a waste of time I wouldn't post. :)I question why you're working so hard to defend what's at best a marginal decision?

Your post is very long...I see your point regarding A.)b.) Obviously there is truth to how people act when they are drunk, I know this I worked in hospitality for years. I was not tanked fall down drunk I was coherent drunk. I have played enough poker in this condition to know when enough is enough. The money management point isn't valid. Money is important to me but my lack of bankroll management is by choice more than anything else. I'm under thirty and have been semi-retired for a few years. c.) I agree in retrospect it was a very small sample size to conclude anything from. I have not once said that this was a great play I am debating it because I don't think that it is absolutley horrible and most people come to a forum like this look at a hand that isn't ordinary and pass judgement without looking deeper into the the situation. I enjoy the discussion and sharing thoughts on hands where I don't think there is a cut right or wrong answer.

[cMcMonkey 0]

Yeah, I'm pretty long-winded sometimes. I think there's a little bit of misunderstanding on both sides. I, for one, am not arguing that it is a stupid move you should never make, I'm saying the information you used was scarce and probably skewed. There are times when it can be profitable to call with any hand and make a move at someone you have a good read on, I don't think this was one of those times. It seems like you've gotten away from arguing the merits of this move in this particular case, and instead you're defending a move like this at *any* time and in essence defending how you play poker in general.And drunk is drunk as far as I'm concerned when playing poker. Whether falling down or just pretty buzzed your not playing the same as you would when sober, and I for one want to always play to the best of my ability. If you think you're playing the same after you've had a few, I'm not going to convince you otherwise, but its my opinion that you're throwing away money that way. If you're ok with that then fine, but why come to a poker forum and discuss the minutiae of a marginal play to get a little more edge when you're throwing money away by playing drunk?

[irishguy 14]

Yeah, I'm pretty long-winded sometimes. I think there's a little bit of misunderstanding on both sides. I, for one, am not arguing that it is a stupid move you should never make, I'm saying the information you used was scarce and probably skewed. There are times when it can be profitable to call with any hand and make a move at someone you have a good read on, I don't think this was one of those times. It seems like you've gotten away from arguing the merits of this move in this particular case, and instead you're defending a move like this at *any* time and in essence defending how you play poker in general.

In hindsight I do think there were errors on my end in this hand. I think given the information I had on him I put him on a range that was likely limited farther than it should've been given the pot odds given. I read villain as a super tag fish and felt he wouldn't call me without a huge holding. So in a sense yes I'm still arguing the merits of this particular hand as well as this move in general. The original responses were all that this move was completely retarded and I think given further discussion many who feel it was wrong may see that it is not "completely retarded".

[Jordan 1]

In hindsight I do think there were errors on my end in this hand. I think given the information I had on him I put him on a range that was likely limited farther than it should've been given the pot odds given. I read villain as a super tag fish and felt he wouldn't call me without a huge holding. So in a sense yes I'm still arguing the merits of this particular hand as well as this move in general. The original responses were all that this move was completely retarded and I think given further discussion many who feel it was wrong may see that it is not "completely retarded".

no, it usually is in this case. it just happened to work this time.stop pushing into ppl giving them 4:1, or greater, on the river to call. it's a losing prop. cause you won this time doesn't mean it is a right play.often bluffs aren't "right" plays. I know this. I'm not talking about that tho in regards to this hand. This is a wrong play because of how long you have waited to pull your move and the odds he is getting on his money on the end.The fact that you keep arguing the validty and common sense of this point is mind boggling.- Jordan

[irishguy 14]

no, it usually is in this case. it just happened to work this time.stop pushing into ppl giving them 4:1, or greater, on the river to call. it's a losing prop. cause you won this time doesn't mean it is a right play.often bluffs aren't "right" plays. I know this. I'm not talking about that tho in regards to this hand. This is a wrong play because of how long you have waited to pull your move and the odds he is getting on his money on the end.The fact that you keep arguing the validty and common sense of this point is mind boggling.- Jordan

The post that you qouted wasn't arguing the point you are making. I don't know whats mind boggling about that. As I said I do think this move was wrong based on the pot odds I was giving him and that I had likely limited his range more than I should have. I don't think I waited to long to pull my move. (ITs just not as common as raising the turn) As evident by responses on other forums and yours earlier in this thread that you wouldn't mind the push so much if I wasn't giving those kind of odds.

[Jordan 1]

In hindsight I do think there were errors on my end in this hand. I think given the information I had on him I put him on a range that was likely limited farther than it should've been given the pot odds given. I read villain as a super tag fish and felt he wouldn't call me without a huge holding. So in a sense yes I'm still arguing the merits of this particular hand as well as this move in general. The original responses were all that this move was completely retarded and I think given further discussion many who feel it was wrong may see that it is not "completely retarded".

that quote.i belive i was the first person in this thread to use the term tag fish....but just cause he folded to this river bet doesn't mean he was a "tag fish" as...oh bother i dont even feel like going on anymore.i know you dont think this play was "that" bad..but everything about this play is being argued in "hindsight".it may work down the lin (again -- giving someone 4:1 and >), i do delayed bluffs on occasion..but the fact of the matter was this was not thought out on the turn...it was a desperation bluff that didn't even take into account pot odds on the river.i'm glad you had a "read" from his betting tell, or whatever the hell it was...but goodness this play is not going to work 75% of the time. not even close.- Jordan

[irishguy 14]

that quote.i belive i was the first person in this thread to use the term tag fish....but just cause he folded to this river bet doesn't mean he was a "tag fish" as...oh bother i dont even feel like going on anymore.i know you dont think this play was "that" bad..but everything about this play is being argued in "hindsight".it may work down the lin (again -- giving someone 4:1 and >), i do delayed bluffs on occasion..but the fact of the matter was this was not thought out on the turn...it was a desperation bluff that didn't even take into account pot odds on the river.i'm glad you had a "read" from his betting tell, or whatever the hell it was...but goodness this play is not going to work 75% of the time. not even close.- Jordan

We're arguing the same point now. You first used the term tag fish I believe in reference to my desciption of vllain. Again I agree 100% that this hand was bad based on the pot odds given him(and I didn't think this through on the turn) as I had limited his range to far. Deeper stack where I could apply pressure with the river shove based on my read without giving good odds I do not feel like it would be a horrible line.

[SuperJon 175]

Firstly I appreciate the discussion with you on this hand. I had started than stopped posting in strat as I often have a different approach than the masses, and found the constant "this is the only way to play" attitude frustrating. You make a lot of valid points. I am not sure what levels you typically play (with zero bankroll management I fluctuate from 1/2,2/4,3/6 depending on my mood). At this level I often find that most people are quick to "try to define their hands". Generally a top pair hand at this level will raise the flop or if not almost always raise the turn, by calling I am trying to represent something better than tptk. Certainly a draw would often play out their hand as mine did on the flop and the turn. The river question posed to Villain is am I coming over the top on the river because I'm bluffing a busted draw, made my hand on the river or slow played a set,two pair etc. Because villain had shown weakness through out my time at the table I didn't think he was the type to call off the river shove with at best one pair. Against other people this most certainly wouldn't be the case and against most at the levels I play you are almost never going to shake someone off of an over pair. This is exactly why I often play sets, two pair etc the same way because against most I'm getting this river shove paid off.

So you're saying that players at this level are predictable? Which probably means you think they're just a bunch of donkeys, right?Well when's the last time you saw a donkey lay down a big pair on the river to an all in?Bad play.

[irishguy 14]

So you're saying that players at this level are predictable? Which probably means you think they're just a bunch of donkeys, right?Well when's the last time you saw a donkey lay down a big pair on the river to an all in?Bad play.

I see your point. But what you bolded was me saying that most people at this level in my position would be raising the flop or turn with a top pair hand by calling and jamming the river I felt as though I could represent a slow played two pair, set type hand. At no point in this thread did I say I thought villain had a big pair that was an option others brought up. MY point was that I didn't think it was out of line to expect a one pair hand to fold to this river shove. After seeing the kind of odds I was giving him I think it would take in Jordan's words a very tag fish to fold even a marginal hand with the odds they were getting.

[sknkd 0]

I wonder what the talk would be of this hand if I posted as villain holding somehing like AA, KK.

wtg for making your opponent think you were weak while building a pot?

[Sefaje 0]

lol i cant believe i missed this thread.irishguy i will pretend you folded Q4 preflop if you promise to use the correct form of their/they're/there from now on

[CobaltBlue 662]

Okay...so I read the whole thread.I think one principle that has been touched on but not stated: It's generally better to bluff earlier than later. You'll still have outs and you won't have a monster pot that you're trying to push a guy off of.I do think that the betting patterns are key to this hand. Generally speaking, these bet sizes (2/3-3/4) and betting patterns are strong in the sense that they typically come from competent players. An average competent villain could easily have an overpair, two pair, a set, or a straight here. That said, our "read" is that villain isn't strong. I think that's a BS assessment PF (barring very obvious bet-sizing differences), but as the hand develops, we can hone it. Because of that read of weakness, I think we need to move on the turn...where we'll have a believable story, win a large pot, and still have outs if we're called. Oh, and we can still potentially price him out of drawing (if that's our read).

[No_Neck 0]

Yeah, but here's the seriously important question.A friend and I got in a debate as to who is hotter, Jessica Alba or this girl:

I don't even think it's close, and I think Alba's really hot. This girl makes Alba look like my poker game...ugly and full of leaks. Wait, that doesn't make sense.

wow I think this chick is by far the hottest chick ever...,Alba is hot but not nearly as "I want to slam your head into a wall" hot.....EDIT: Bump

[Verdimme 0]

This is a strong case of FPS. My vote is drunk and retarded.

[Naismith 0]

Arbitrary

[IBFT 0]

i got through 2.5 pages and i came to this conclusion:This was posted as a veiled brag post because "villain" probably folded the better hand and the "hero" in this hand probably thinks that that is justification for playing the hand poorly.amirite?