Posted Wed Mar 22, 2006 2:32 am GMT by Skribbles
Is there some book or pro that preaches this that I don't know about? It seems like every freakin donk and his dog are using this thinking it "looks like a bluff". Or maybe I'm the donk here and am missing out on some ultra-secret special play... I dunno.
Twice tonite I was in pots where the villian extremely overbet the pot. One hand there was two kings on the board and I had pocket tens. Smallish pot of about $30. I check to him on the river, he pushed for $100+. I obviously fold and sure enough he shows quads kings (which he limped in with). A little later at a different table I'm involved in a pot w/ JJ and no overcards. Turn brought me a flush but before I could bet the guy pushed for $150~ into a $50 pot. I quickly fold and he shows AA with the nut flush.
Anyone with a brain doesn't even think about making either of these calls. Meanwhile, these two players wasted monster hands which if value bet properly, could have extracted a few more bucks from me.
Could someone please explain this mysterious phenomenom(sp) so I can stop berating these idiots for there play.
Did you know that participating in a poker forum can help you improve your own game? Be it by sharing experiences or simply asking for help, participation in a forum helps you focus and keep 'on topic' which will help you improve your game. You can learn from other players feedback and from their experiences. Why the THP poker forums? We offer one of the best managed texas holdem poker forums available, and the community within is far more friendly than those typicaly found on other sites. We've made a 'lurkers edition' of the poker forum available here on Holdem Poker Online, but we encourage all visitors to register and join in on the conversations on TexasHoldem-Poker.com
Posted Wed Mar 22, 2006 5:36 am GMT by Tadzio
Maybe they're setting you up for an overbet bluff in the future? Overbetting isn't the best way to get money or to bluff, but if people wanna risk 50 dollars to pick up 15, let them. And then thank them when you're holding the nuts.
Posted Wed Mar 22, 2006 6:23 am GMT by xDiamond_CutteRx
People watch too much TV, and as a result, develop severe cases of FPS. It seems like I'm the only one who value bets anymore at a lot of the games I go to. All of a sudden, ABC Poker has seemed to become the "deceptive" play.
Posted Wed Mar 22, 2006 6:44 am GMT by fiezk
This is a tactic that works very well at micro stakes. Seems some players have trouble letting go.
Posted Wed Mar 22, 2006 9:35 am GMT by Dat_Dude
The only time I have used the overbet is on the river. If you have a monster hand and have value betted it properly earlier in the hand (say the quad kings hand), then an overbet on the river really looks like you are trying to buy it. People use the overbet bluff on the river often to try and get mediocre hands out of the pot and good players can recognize that, so sometimes (key word: SOMETIMES) an overbet on the river works.
Overbetting on the flop and turn is dumb though, IMO.
Posted Wed Mar 22, 2006 4:07 pm GMT by tame_deuces
It has its time and place. Discounting something as a bad play isn't always wise.
Its best used by people who tend to overbet alot of hands though, like draws etc. Very hard to counter. I would also claim overbetting is much stronger shorthanded than it is in full ring, where people will peg you for strength more often.
Remember it can be much more valuable to get ONE large payout than three small ones, that's always an important point, overbetting doesn't have to work all the time to be the superior play.
Posted Wed Mar 22, 2006 5:47 pm GMT by Johny
From what I've seen overbets rarely mean a buff, so I don't mind others using it because it results in a easy decision for me.
One of the only overbets that I actually like was during the Legends of Poker that Doyle won.
It played out something like this, not exactly sure. Heads-up with Lee Watkinson, Brunson raised from the button with 1010 and Watkinson called with Q8.
The flop was A33, Watkinson checked, Brunson checked.
The turn was A33 9, Watkinson checked, Brunson checked.
The river was 9, Watkinson checked, Brunson bet 2x pot and Watkinson called.
I really liked Brunson's overbet and he took down a big pot (remember, WPT structure near the end  )
Posted Thu Mar 23, 2006 3:29 pm GMT by Skribbles
This just seems completely retarded to me. Hands like these don't come along every session so you MUST capitalize on them.
Only a true donk would pay these bets off. There are a lot of them out there, but I don't think there would be enough to make this a positive play.
As for setting oppenents up... I gotta disagree. For the most part internet players are multi-tabling, table hoping or just not paying enough attention for this to work.
Posted Thu Mar 23, 2006 3:48 pm GMT by BeerWench13
| Quote: | | Is there some book or pro that preaches this that I don't know about? It seems like every freakin donk and his dog are using this thinking it "looks like a bluff". Or maybe I'm the donk here and am missing out on some ultra-secret special play... I dunno. |
As with any play in poker, it depends. This can be a great play if you know your opponent has a big hand and a lot invested in it. You're more likely to get a big payout at the end. On the other hand, if you're playing a player who has a clue, it's a huge error and loss of chips with a big hand.
The key with this play is to know your opponent. I've used it twice against the same player one night and he paid me off both times. But, I knew he would. I'd bluffed him off a huge pot and hit the wrong button and showed the bluff (damn wine!) earlier. After that, he was calling me down with any two cards. This worked well against him.
If you don't know what type of player your opponent is, then the play is horrible from every standpoint. On the other hand, if you know you can get a big payoff on the river by overbetting, why not add it to your list of strategies?
Posted Thu Mar 23, 2006 3:57 pm GMT by tame_deuces
If you read villain for a powerful 2nd best hand, why NOT overbet? I don't get it...why are small bets allowing someone to get off cheap necessarily the best option, and why would only 'donks' pay them off and 'donks' do them?
So player A overbets and player B folds...that still doesn't mean the overbet was the less profitable option. Poker is something taking place over time.
When stacks go deep overbetting also gets more and more powerful, esp against avid bluffers, which will often raise you in deep stacked games....because you'll often bet, get raised and then overbet and remove implied odds from the drawing hands of villain, it will make any future decisions very easy.
So basically I can see these good scenarios for overbetting a strong hand.
1.) Holding a very strong hand and reading opponent for a strong 2nd best hand.
2.) Short handed where you'll sometimes be pegged for less strength.
3.) In HU cash games it is a powerful tactic to overbet both draws and strong hands.
4.) Deep Stacked when you want to get as much in as your stack as possible after villain has donated to the pot.
5.) When you want easy decisions on later streets.
6.) When you think you'll be called. Be it because opp is a calling station, a donk, new to poker or tilted.
Sure, maybe folk overbet too much, but discounting something as bad play because of that is wrong. People tend to bluff too much and call too much too, but still neither bluffing nor calling are bad plays when applied in the correct situations.
Posted Thu Mar 23, 2006 9:56 pm GMT by AHBrownell
I'd have to agree with tame, and a few others here. The big thing about any play is the situation. I personally like to make a large raise bluff occassionally - usually on a semi-bluff; read "The Big Play" thread for info. If I make this play and get called down - either hitting my hand or not; then I have accomplished something. The good players at the table are now more willing to call me down.
The bad players may have been willing to call you down before anyway, but now the players who are not supposed to be paying you off much are throwing their chips in the pot when you make a large reraise with nuts.
My favorite situation is you have a A-high flush draw on the turn and a pair (ideally aces). Your opponent bets. You raise 5x his raise. Now he may fold - but if he calls you - and you hit your hand on the turn/river you just sucked out and now he's pissed (tilt anyone). THEN the next hand, or shortly thereafter, you hit a set or two pair on a good flop AT5 you hit trip 5s. Most players with something like AK would get away from a reraise - but because you OVERBET a bluff recently that good player may reraise you all-in (gotta love tilt) - and now you get all their chips.
Another value of the overbet is that it can disguise your play. Usually people who hit certain visible hands, a flush for example, will bet a "call me" bet on the river. Most good players do this. So if my opponent is calling the flop, calling the turn, and then the flush hits and he bets 1/3 the pot - I'm gonna usually fold a pair (maybe call w/ a set if I think I have a chance based on the odds). However, if my opponent called, called, and then bets 2x the pot on the river I have a much tougher decision. Now it looks like either a donk play - or he's bluffing. Or he might be betting the nuts trying to make me think he is bluffing (because otherwise he would bet a call-me bet) --- Truthfully, I have no idea what he has. That is a good play. Remember, the point of a play is to give your opponent tough decisions - so that you encourage them to make mistakes. Now occassionally the overbet gives you a really easy decision - but also occasionally it gives you a difficult one.
Posted Fri Mar 24, 2006 8:17 am GMT by BeerWench13
I used the overbet last night at a $.25/.50 cash game. I had 9To in BB and checked it in. Flop 7  J  2  . It checked around. Turn 8 . I bet pot and player to my left reraised. It folded back around to me and I pushed for $48 on a pot of ~$10 and he called. He had flopped a set of 7's. The board didn't pair and I doubled up.
The next round, I had 9T on the button. UTG placed a minimum raise and I had 4 callers in front and, well, this hand had worked before  and I had odds , so I called. Flop 7 8 J  . Wow, I flopped the nuts. Original bettor bet 1/3 pot. It folded around to me. I smelled a set and truthfully wanted to get him out of the hand before the board paired, so I reraised pot. He called. Turn 2 . He bet pot and I reraised him all in (a huge overbet since he was sitting with $50+ at the beginning of the hand). He called with his set of 8's. The board didn't pair and I doubled up again.
Could I have extracted more out of either of these players? Absolutely not. Could I have played it differently. Absolutely.
I figured in hand 1 that he probably put me on a flush draw and figured my big bet was a semi-bluff. In hand 2, I knew he had a set and wanted to get him out of the pot, but figured he'd call because the bet looked so much like a bluff. I was lucky that the board didn't pair in either situation, but I got all of my money in with the best hand. And, miraculously, it held up both times.
Posted Fri Mar 24, 2006 9:51 am GMT by UrAteUp
Only you have the luck to pull that off twice Wench. If I had tried that the board would have paired for sure and I would have went broke... ...twice... .
I have used the over bet in several recent ring games. Most recent was this morning. I had 88 and was in LP. 6 players limped in and I raised to 3xBB. SB and BB called. Flop came out as 567o. It was checked to me and I put out a half pot sized bet. Everyone called. I was a little stuned to say the least. I knew we all couldn't be on a hand. Next card out was a 9 and gave me the nut straight. River brought an A. First to bet put out a pot sized bet. 3 people stayed in and it came to me. I pushed all-in. 1 person folded and 2 called. First turns over a PP 10s. Second turns over AK. Needless to say I was very happy bringing in a pot that boosted my entire bankroll by about 1/4 of it's size... . Not all of us here play those big money games. Personally I am starting to grow fond of donks and have been making decent money from them at the micro-levels....
Posted Fri Mar 24, 2006 10:01 am GMT by BeerWench13
| Quote: | | Only you have the luck to pull that off twice Wench. |
It's about damn time I got some luck. I've been taking bad beats, making bad reads and getting pounded by the poker gods (not in a good way) for the last 4-6 months. I finally hit big hands, they held up and I got paid. It's been forever!
I like donks too. I was playing $.50/1 and both tables were like a rock garden. I couldn't get paid even just betting $1 on the river. And I thought I was a tight player. So, I figured, since I'd had a bottle of wine already  that I would "slum" a bit at the $.25/.50 tables. What a great decision! It's amazing how many players there have more money than sense. I love them! 
Posted Fri Mar 24, 2006 10:41 am GMT by UrAteUp
quote="BeerWench13" | Quote: | | that I would "slum" a bit at the $.25/.50 tables. What a great decision! It's amazing how many players there have more money than sense. I love them! |
I slum it up in the $0.05/$0.10. It is just amazing how many people in these levels do have more money then brains. Most think A means your an automatic winner. They can't understand how TPTK can get bewat by a straight or a set. I just hope they never learn poker the right way....
Posted Fri Mar 24, 2006 10:49 am GMT by BeerWench13
| Quote: | | Most think A means your an automatic winner. |
I love these people. You know they've seen poker on TV and thought well, insert poker pro name here raised a lot with A2o on TV. What they don't realize is that it was heads-up at the final table of a tournament, not in a 10-handed cash game UTG.
Posted Tue Mar 28, 2006 9:57 pm GMT by Skribbles
http://www.pokerhand.org/?283734
THIS IS THE STUPID SHIT I AM TALKING ABOUT!!!!
What hand is going to call him???
He has the board dominated... only a complete idiot would call that with an just an ace. He may get a call 1/100 by some donk who hit a runner-runner nut flush... but that is it. Completely f*ck retarded. Especially in an MTT where amassing chips is so crucial.
Posted Wed Mar 29, 2006 9:06 am GMT by BeerWench13
I agree with you on that hand. That guy was a moron. Why not a min bet just to extract something from you. Hell, he may have convinced you to pop over top with a weak bet. I hope you pwned him later.
Posted Wed Mar 29, 2006 9:33 am GMT by Dat_Dude
Yeah, that was a very dumb bet. He was basically hoping on one thing...that you hit your flush. The chances are so unlikely that it is a really stupid bet on his part.
I don't know how you play, but he probably could have gotten a call on the turn and river if he just put out a couple $120-150 bets and earned a little more. Instead he got a measley 360.
Posted Wed Mar 29, 2006 10:25 am GMT by UrAteUp
Quads are a perfect hand for slow playing. I agree with Dat here. Throw in under-sized bets here and get some calls. At least try collecting more then the first bet.
Posted Wed Mar 29, 2006 12:40 pm GMT by Gunslinger
Seems like every other cash game session I'm in, some idiot will raise 20BB pre-flop, or just go all-in, and when everyone folds, he flashes his pocket kings, and I can just hear him saying to his computer monitor, "Oh you all just got so lucky, I would have smoked you!" Moron. Makes my decisions against him much easier, though.
Posted Wed Mar 29, 2006 3:44 pm GMT by Skribbles
| Dat_Dude wrote: | Yeah, that was a very dumb bet. He was basically hoping on one thing...that you hit your flush. The chances are so unlikely that it is a really stupid bet on his part.
I don't know how you play, but he probably could have gotten a call on the turn and river if he just put out a couple $120-150 bets and earned a little more. Instead he got a measley 360. |
A small bet *may* have inticed a call. I was pretty darn sure that he hit trips though. A check/call on the flop with a board like that means trips 99% of the time... in cheap MTTs like this one anyway ($10).
A bet of 150 would have been that max that I call. Simply because the K hit the river to get rid of my duece kicker.
Either way... a horrible play.
Posted Wed Mar 29, 2006 3:49 pm GMT by BeerWench13
| Quote: | | some idiot will raise 20BB pre-flop, or just go all-in, and when everyone folds, he flashes his pocket kings, |
I don't understand this either. Why show? Are you trying to show that you're a complete imbecile who doesn't know how to play big pockets? Are you trying to gain respect from the table? This doesn't make any sense to me. I don't see what you accomplish when you show an uncalled hand unless it's a total bluff and you're trying to get more action later in the game. Even then, I won't show unless I know I'm playing a volatile player who will hit insta-tilt when that happens.
Posted Wed Mar 29, 2006 4:50 pm GMT by Gunslinger
You're absolutely right, wenchie, I guess that makes him twice as stupid. 
Posted Wed Mar 29, 2006 6:19 pm GMT by Skribbles
Another example of an idiot overbet....
PokerStars Game #4455929682: Tournament #22166403, Hold'em No Limit - Level I (10/20) - 2006/03/29 - 18:14:45 (ET)
Table '22166403 1' 9-max Seat #5 is the button
Seat 1: cashier33 (1500 in chips)
Seat 2: arischa (1490 in chips)
Seat 3: flipmax (840 in chips)
Seat 4: cbr171 (1470 in chips)
Seat 5: quagdogg (1670 in chips)
Seat 6: ravens5254 (2000 in chips)
Seat 7: Dave_Babych8 (1500 in chips)
Seat 8: 73MarkIV (1500 in chips)
Seat 9: buknakd (1530 in chips)
ravens5254: posts small blind 10
Dave_Babych8: posts big blind 20
*** HOLE CARDS ***
Dealt to Dave_Babych8  
73MarkIV: calls 20
buknakd: folds
cashier33: folds
arischa: calls 20
flipmax: calls 20
cbr171: folds
quagdogg: folds
ravens5254: calls 10
Dave_Babych8: checks
*** FLOP ***   
ravens5254: bets 1000
Dave_Babych8: raises 480 to 1480 and is all-in
73MarkIV: folds
arischa: folds
flipmax: folds
ravens5254: calls 480
*** TURN *** 
*** RIVER *** 
*** SHOW DOWN ***
ravens5254: shows   (two pair, Nines and Sixes)
Dave_Babych8: shows (three of a kind, Sixes)
Dave_Babych8 said, "nice bet"
Dave_Babych8 collected 3060 from pot
*** SUMMARY ***
Total pot 3060 | Rake 0
Board
Seat 1: cashier33 folded before Flop (didn't bet)
Seat 2: arischa folded on the Flop
Seat 3: flipmax folded on the Flop
Seat 4: cbr171 folded before Flop (didn't bet)
Seat 5: quagdogg (button) folded before Flop (didn't bet)
Seat 6: ravens5254 (small blind) showed and lost with two pair, Nines and Sixes
Seat 7: Dave_Babych8 (big blind) showed and won (3060) with three of a kind, Sixes
Seat 8: 73MarkIV folded on the Flop
Seat 9: buknakd folded before Flop (didn't bet)
Posted Wed Mar 29, 2006 6:24 pm GMT by suitedaces84
If you compare betting 150 to 1800 betting 1800 is better. First off a 150 bet often won't get called because the player who bet the flop was often bluffing. But we'll forget about that for now and assume that a 150 chip bet gets called everytime. Now the question how often will a 1800 chip bet gete called? If the answer is at least 1 in 10 times in a $10 game (sometimes it will be a flush, sometimes it will be an A) then betting 1800 is best. I don't know what kind of small stakes games you guys are playing but I know an all-in in the games I play will get called at least 1 in 10 times, which is all it will have to be called.
Making in a large overbet with a very strong hand is a lot like making a crying call on the river in a limit game. It usually won't be best but due to the odds it will only have to be best a small portion of the time to be better than folding. The huge overbet with a very strong hand usually won't be best, but that's ok. It only has to be best a small portion of the time to be better than a small bet. I think you guys are underestimating how often players in small stakes games will make a loose call vs. a large bet.
| Skribbles wrote: | | THIS IS THE STUPID SHIT I AM TALKING ABOUT!!!! |
If overbets bother you this much you should give pot limit a go.
Posted Wed Mar 29, 2006 6:42 pm GMT by Skribbles
| suitedaces84 wrote: | | Skribbles wrote: | | THIS IS THE STUPID SHIT I AM TALKING ABOUT!!!! |
If overbets bother you this much you should give pot limit a go. |
Maybe it is my vast poker intellect compared to these players. I just see this as missing an oppurtunity to amass chips/money. It isn't often you get hands like these and to not profit from them is foolish IMO.
I'd rather pick up a small bet 10/10 times instead of winning a big pot 1/10.
Posted Thu Mar 30, 2006 8:33 am GMT by BeerWench13
| Quote: | Maybe it is my vast poker intellect compared to these players. I just see this as missing an oppurtunity to amass chips/money. It isn't often you get hands like these and to not profit from them is foolish IMO.
I'd rather pick up a small bet 10/10 times instead of winning a big pot 1/10. |
Exactly what I was thinking.
The other side of the coin, however, is if you know your opponent will call the big overbet. If you are 90%+ sure that they're complete donks and will call you with their inferior hand, then the overbet is an excellent tool. However, you have to know your opponent to make this play work for you otherwise you're wasting those value bets and missing a prime opportunity to build your chip stack.
Posted Thu Mar 30, 2006 9:53 am GMT by Dat_Dude
Something I think should be mentioned here is the SIZE of the Overbet. Typically, anything bigger than the size of the pot is probably considered an overbet, right?
So, say the pot is $200 from preflop action. If on the flop someone fires out a $400 bet, it is considered an overbet wouldn't you say?. This, however, can actually be very useful. I have run this kind of play a few times and got an opponent to play back at me almost every time.
Example:
Heads up...blinds 25/50.
Hero: SB 8 4 Raise to $150
Villain: BB Calls (Pot $300)
Flop: 8 4 A
Now, a lot of players would try a check/raise in this spot, but I think it disguises your hand a lot more if you run the overbet.
Hero: BETS $500
Villain: Raises ALL-In
Hero: Calls.
Villain shows A 6
This was live, so I asked him what he thought I had and he put me on a pocket pair about 9-J or so and thought I was just trying to push him out of the hand.
Now, had I made the Overbet that pisses Skribs off, like pushing all in on the flop, I would have gotten no action whatsoever. That is why that bet is such a stupid move. But I do think SMALLER Overbets have some merit and it at least keeps your hand concealed.
Just my $.02
Posted Mon Apr 17, 2006 9:44 am GMT by gumbie
Skribbles I really don't see why u are angry.
Betting 22$ and getting called 1/10 times is better than betting 2$ and getting called every time.
Do you see why?
Posted Mon Apr 17, 2006 11:10 am GMT by Skribbles
| gumbie wrote: | Skribbles I really don't see why u are angry.
Betting 22$ and getting called 1/10 times is better than betting 2$ and getting called every time.
Do you see why? |
What about betting $10 and getting called 5/10 times?
Posted Mon Apr 17, 2006 12:16 pm GMT by suitedaces84
Assuming that $2 is a "reasonable" amount $10 is still a large overbet. I think you're missing gumbie's point.
Posted Mon Apr 17, 2006 12:31 pm GMT by Skribbles
| suitedaces84 wrote: | | Assuming that $2 is a "reasonable" amount $10 is still a large overbet. I think you're missing gumbie's point. |
And I think you missed my point. I know what Gumbie is implying and personnaly, I don't pay off these players 1/10 hands.
I'd rather value bet my hand everytime and get paid almost everytime than hope for the one donk to pay me off with a huge overbet.
Posted Mon Apr 17, 2006 2:06 pm GMT by suitedaces84
| Skribbles wrote: | | I'd rather value bet my hand everytime and get paid almost everytime than hope for the one donk to pay me off with a huge overbet. |
I'd rather make the play that wins the most in the long run not the play that wins the most consistently. I guess it's another one of those UrAteUp personal preference problems.
Posted Mon Apr 17, 2006 2:14 pm GMT by Skribbles
| suitedaces84 wrote: |
I'd rather make the play that wins the most in the long run |
Agreed. And IMO, a value bet everytime will earn you more in the long. Depending on the hand and the opponent the size of the bet will vary.
Posted Mon Apr 17, 2006 2:59 pm GMT by Miss_J
| suitedaces84 wrote: |
I'd rather make the play that wins the most in the long run not the play that wins the most consistently. |
these are one in the same man.
Posted Mon Apr 17, 2006 3:03 pm GMT by gumbie
OK skribby, just out of curiosity do you ever bluff?
If you do how much do you bet when you are bluffing?
The same as when you value bet -- which guarantees a call according to you.
A lot more than when you value bet --- which guarantees a call because you are obviously bluffing because you always make small value bets when you have a hand.
Posted Mon Apr 17, 2006 3:26 pm GMT by Skribbles
| gumbie wrote: | OK skribby, just out of curiosity do you ever bluff?
|
Pretty much never. Not in cash games anyway.
Posted Mon Apr 17, 2006 3:39 pm GMT by UrAteUp
| Skribbles wrote: | | Pretty much never. Not in cash games anyway. |
Oh now come on Skribbles...even I bluff.
| Quote: |
I guess it's another one of those UrAteUp personal preference problems.
|
What the heck? How did I get involved in this? Is this a compliment? I am going to take it as one Suited... ...so smile when you mention my name pilgrim...
Posted Mon Apr 17, 2006 3:50 pm GMT by Skribbles
| UrAteUp wrote: | | Skribbles wrote: | | Pretty much never. Not in cash games anyway. |
Oh now come on Skribbles...even I bluff.
|
I don't find it necessary in the games I play (NL100 & NL200).
Posted Mon Apr 17, 2006 6:37 pm GMT by suitedaces84
| Miss_J wrote: | | suitedaces84 wrote: |
I'd rather make the play that wins the most in the long run not the play that wins the most consistently. |
these are one in the same man. |
No they're not.
Posted Tue Apr 18, 2006 8:31 am GMT by UrAteUp
| Skribbles wrote: | | UrAteUp wrote: | | Skribbles wrote: | | Pretty much never. Not in cash games anyway. |
Oh now come on Skribbles...even I bluff.
|
I don't find it necessary in the games I play (NL100 & NL200). |
Ahhh...understandable. A failed bluff is more costly at these stakes then at micros.
Posted Tue Apr 18, 2006 9:10 am GMT by supafrey
| suitedaces84 wrote: | | Miss_J wrote: | | suitedaces84 wrote: |
I'd rather make the play that wins the most in the long run not the play that wins the most consistently. |
these are one in the same man. |
No they're not. |
Yeah they're nowhere near the same thing.
| UrAteUp wrote: | | Skribbles wrote: | | UrAteUp wrote: | | Skribbles wrote: | | Pretty much never. Not in cash games anyway. |
Oh now come on Skribbles...even I bluff.
|
I don't find it necessary in the games I play (NL100 & NL200). |
Ahhh...understandable. A failed bluff is more costly at these stakes then at micros. |
There is absolutely no logic behind what you just said.
Posted Tue Apr 18, 2006 10:57 am GMT by suitedaces84
| UrAteUp wrote: | | Skribbles wrote: | | UrAteUp wrote: | | Skribbles wrote: | | Pretty much never. Not in cash games anyway. |
Oh now come on Skribbles...even I bluff.
|
I don't find it necessary in the games I play (NL100 & NL200). |
Ahhh...understandable. A failed bluff is more costly at these stakes then at micros. |
You should also see fewer flops because the blinds are higher.
Posted Tue Apr 18, 2006 11:18 am GMT by supafrey
And raise more because it's easier to get people to fold.
Posted Tue Apr 18, 2006 12:02 pm GMT by kainARGH
| Quote: | | I don't find it necessary in the games I play (NL100 & NL200). |
Never bluff or rarely bluff , I would hope you at least bluff once every 4 or 5 orbits.
Then again , whatever works for you I guess
Posted Tue Apr 18, 2006 8:35 pm GMT by snoogins47
Do you not find a 'need' to bluff because you can play profitable poker anyway? Do you see why this is an arbitrary distinction, and you could still obviously be costing yourself money? (Which, from purely an opinion standpoint, that I can't back up with anything more than experience: you definitely are)
I could probably beat the NL games I play (winrate > 0) with a VPIP of 10%. Do I feel the need to play 20%+ extra hands? I do, because I make more money that way, despite the fact that I'd be a winner the other way.
If it's just that you don't think bluffs are generally profitable: even if that is true, there are still always times when it is profitable to bluff, and I would advise you to try to recognize these better and act on them, because if done successfully, there's nowhere to go but up.
| Quote: | | Agreed. And IMO, a value bet everytime will earn you more in the long. Depending on the hand and the opponent the size of the bet will vary. |
I can't disagree with this sentence until we're working from the same framework: what do you define as a 'value bet?' (I was actually meaning to write up a post/article about how I hated the terms 'value bet' and 'bluff' and 'semi-bluff' and everything else. Maybe I'll feel inspired enough tonight! :p) (I also just realized that I may have started using the tongue-stickey-out smiley face more than the normal smile one, because of how often I want to use the smiley right before a right-parenthesis. Weird. ;p)
The easiest way to look at it though, I think: don't just look at the "Getting called 10% vs. getting called 90%" thing... extend that a little farther, to "getting called by 10% of the hands he might hold vs. getting called with 90% of the hands he might hold."
There are boards when a smaller/moderate bet is rarely going to get action, simply because there aren't many hands that can stand any heat. This may be the time to overbet with a monster, as the mountains of extra money you make on the occasion you're up against a strong 2nd best, vastly outweigh the relatively small amount of money that you'll make on the off chance he looks you up with a weaker hand, simply because there aren't many weaker hands that can call that smaller bet. Generally speaking, this can often be on scary boards, or boards that are very uncoordinated and missed a lot of hands... and naturally this is light years away from being the whole story.
Posted Wed Apr 19, 2006 12:27 pm GMT by Skribbles
| snoogins47 wrote: | | Do you not find a 'need' to bluff because you can play profitable poker anyway? |
Yes. I have no problem beating these games without bluffing. Over 20K hands I am just under 10BB/100.
/quote
| snoogins47 wrote: |
Do you see why this is an arbitrary distinction, and you could still obviously be costing yourself money? (Which, from purely an opinion standpoint, that I can't back up with anything more than experience: you definitely are) |
I agree that I *may* be leaving money on the table.
| snoogins47 wrote: |
I could probably beat the NL games I play (winrate > 0) with a VPIP of 10%. Do I feel the need to play 20%+ extra hands? I do, because I make more money that way, despite the fact that I'd be a winner the other way. |
I have a VPIP around 17%. Definitly I could play more hands but I don't necessarily think it would be more profitable. The hands that pay me off most are low pockets and connectors.
| snoogins47 wrote: |
If it's just that you don't think bluffs are generally profitable: even if that is true, there are still always times when it is profitable to bluff, and I would advise you to try to recognize these better and act on them, because if done successfully, there's nowhere to go but up. |
I do make plays in these situations. If I'm against a player who will make a continuation bet everytime, I'll check/raise with nothing if I think he missed. Basically, I prefer to put pressure on other players when I think they are weak or simply missed.
| Quote: | | Agreed. And IMO, a value bet everytime will earn you more in the long. Depending on the hand and the opponent the size of the bet will vary. |
| snoogins47 wrote: |
I can't disagree with this sentence until we're working from the same framework: what do you define as a 'value bet?' (I was actually meaning to write up a post/article about how I hated the terms 'value bet' and 'bluff' and 'semi-bluff' and everything else. Maybe I'll feel inspired enough tonight! :p) (I also just realized that I may have started using the tongue-stickey-out smiley face more than the normal smile one, because of how often I want to use the smiley right before a right-parenthesis. Weird. ;p) |
I'll admit I don't know what the actual definition of "value bet" is. To me, it is getting the maximum value of your hand. This of course has numerous factors such as (but not limited to) board strength, hand strength and opponent.
| snoogins47 wrote: |
The easiest way to look at it though, I think: don't just look at the "Getting called 10% vs. getting called 90%" thing... extend that a little farther, to "getting called by 10% of the hands he might hold vs. getting called with 90% of the hands he might hold."
There are boards when a smaller/moderate bet is rarely going to get action, simply because there aren't many hands that can stand any heat. This may be the time to overbet with a monster, as the mountains of extra money you make on the occasion you're up against a strong 2nd best, vastly outweigh the relatively small amount of money that you'll make on the off chance he looks you up with a weaker hand, simply because there aren't many weaker hands that can call that smaller bet. Generally speaking, this can often be on scary boards, or boards that are very uncoordinated and missed a lot of hands... and naturally this is light years away from being the whole story. |
IF used properly I could see overbetting somewhat profitable however not as profitable as getting paid off everytime.
The hands that I posted in this thread were examples of players trying to get cute against a rather tight player in myself, and wasting extremely good hands. Look back at those hands and please tell me your opinion.
Posted Wed Apr 19, 2006 12:34 pm GMT by BeerWench13
| Skribbles wrote: | | The hands that I posted in this thread were examples of players trying to get cute against a rather tight player in myself, and wasting extremely good hands. Look back at those hands and please tell me your opinion. |
I agree with you on those hands. They wasted the opportunity to get more of your chips. A lot of this has to do with paying attention which a lot of online players do not do. If they were paying attention and recognized you as a tighter player, perhaps they would have seen the folly of their play. However, against a loose player or calling station, this play can be extremely profitable. The key is to know which type of player you're betting against to be able to make the proper bet. Obviously they were not aware of their opposition's playing style and betting habits or they were just morons.
Posted Wed Apr 19, 2006 1:22 pm GMT by Skribbles
| BeerWench13 wrote: | | or they were just morons. |
Exactly.
If used by a VERY good player, against a player whom they have played at least a few hundred hands against, it may be effective.
Is there any book or "pro" who preaches this play?
Posted Wed Apr 19, 2006 2:20 pm GMT by suitedaces84
| Skribbles wrote: | | Is there any book or "pro" who preaches this play? |
| Ed Miller/David Sklansky wrote: | For a moment, take a 30,000 foot view of no limit. Ignore specific hands, situations, bluffs, etc. Just think in general terms. On most hands you don't bet much. On a few hands you bet a lot. If you want to win, you have to bet a lot with your good hands, and bet a little or nothing with your bad ones. If you consistently get it backwards, if you build big pots with bad hands, but keep the pot small with good ones, you'll get crushed over the long haul.
Obvious, right? Except many players frequently get it backwards. Sometimes they'll do it in the name of deception: they'll slowplay and milk with their good hands, or they'll make big, daring bluffs. A little deception is good, but it's only a balance to normal behavior. And normal behavior should be big pots and big bets for big hands.
|
This is from the 2+2 internet magizine March Issue.
Posted Wed Apr 19, 2006 2:54 pm GMT by BeerWench13
| suitedaces84 wrote: | | This is from the 2+2 internet magizine March Issue. |
Webby is going to crucify you for putting any credence in 2 + 2. 
Posted Wed Apr 19, 2006 3:00 pm GMT by suitedaces84
I don't really care for 2+2 but I will admit that their authors and books are damn good.
Posted Wed Mar 21, 2007 4:28 pm GMT by MrDarling
Nice old topic that deserve a bump.
On topic, sometimes in HU I will over bet. Even open push PF when the blinds are still small.
I wont do it with my real monster often, but with hands I'm willing to call a push (mid to small pocket pairs normally) I do it, to get my opp to think I push with crap, which is what most of them do. That way, most low levels players will reduce their AI callign range. Eventhoughly it hurts them.
In cash games I never did it yet.
But I did sometime made a crying call when someone did it. A lot of the times it miss draw or complete rags. Sometimes its a monster. I'm still learning
Posted Mon Mar 26, 2007 5:04 pm GMT by JackKingOff
i guess it worx in micro... lol meant to bet 1$ here but accidently presed the key above
PokerStars Game #9103210244: Hold'em No Limit ($0.05/$0.10) - 2007/03/26 - 18:00:00 (ET)
Table 'Mnemosyne' 6-max Seat #3 is the button
Seat 1: jackofsky ($4.45 in chips)
Seat 2: Lapchong ($8.65 in chips)
Seat 3: Upsilo ($5.55 in chips)
Seat 4: bondon1 ($4.45 in chips)
bondon1: posts small blind $0.05
jackofsky: posts big blind $0.10
*** HOLE CARDS ***
Dealt to Lapchong  
Lapchong: calls $0.10
Upsilo: calls $0.10
bondon1: raises $0.20 to $0.30
jackofsky: folds
Lapchong: calls $0.20
Upsilo: calls $0.20
*** FLOP ***   
bondon1: checks
Lapchong: checks
Upsilo: checks
*** TURN *** 
bondon1: checks
Lapchong: checks
Upsilo: bets $0.30
bondon1: calls $0.30
Lapchong: calls $0.30
*** RIVER *** 
bondon1: checks
Lapchong: bets $4
Upsilo: calls $4
bondon1: folds
*** SHOW DOWN ***
Lapchong: shows (a straight, Eight to Queen)
Upsilo: mucks hand
Lapchong collected $9.45 from pot
*** SUMMARY ***
Total pot $9.90 | Rake $0.45
Board
Seat 1: jackofsky (big blind) folded before Flop
Seat 2: Lapchong showed and won ($9.45) with a straight, Eight to Queen
Seat 3: Upsilo (button) mucked  
Seat 4: bondon1 (small blind) folded on the River
|
|
