Overbetting strong hands post flop |
|
Posted Tue Mar 20, 2007 9:45 pm GMT by efram
I recently picked off a bluff attempt from this guy overbetting a 2suited flop followed by a 3 suited turn. It just seemed almost obvious to me he most likely wouldn't bet more than the pot if he really had a flush. It was clear he wanted to push me out of the pot. I called him to the showdown and beat his middle pair semi-bluff with top pair. I had him on a heart and if a the fourth heart hit the board I would have folded to his pressure. His bluff was obvious to me. Why push me out of a pot with a made hand?
The question I pose, do you ever use the overbet to portray weakness if you've hit the flop really strong, as it can and does look like a bluff?
Thoughts.
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 21, 2007 12:50 am GMT by MrDarling
Yeah, especially in S&G or HU. I'll often try to make it look like I try to buy the pot. Sadly, villain need to have a hand to call, even if he is sure you are bluffing.
In low levels you have 2 major kind of players.
1. min bet made hand, over bet bluffs
2. check/call draws. over bet made hands.
So you have to know how you are against.
Posted Wed Mar 21, 2007 12:53 am GMT by jeffonline
Isn’t it all about mixing up your game? Over betting as a bluff is not a play I like to use, it seems to work occasionally but was it because my opponent didn’t have a hand anyway. Over betting when I do have a hand has not proven lucrative of late. I will still try now and again.
Posted Wed Mar 21, 2007 3:40 am GMT by jimmer
Depends on the read i have on the other guy.
I would only try this move if i've seen him fold to it before.
Posted Wed Mar 21, 2007 2:59 pm GMT by Muck
I can't remember what Sklansky called these levels of thinking in The Theory of Poker but the key seemed to be how well you new you're opponent. Or more exactly how well you new, he new you.
I've done the reverse of this, i.e. a tiny bet as a bluff that despite the great pot odds looks soooo much like a milking bet it caused the guy to fold.
Posted Wed Mar 21, 2007 3:29 pm GMT by Gunslinger
http://www.texasholdem-poker.com/forum/t16193/the-overbet
Posted Wed Mar 21, 2007 10:22 pm GMT by snoogins47
| efram wrote: | The question I pose, do you ever use the overbet to portray weakness if you've hit the flop really strong, as it can and does look like a bluff?
Thoughts. |
Well yes, but like it was mentioned earlier, it often has a lot more to do with image, flop texture, reads, etc. than just a general blanket "I do this for X"
Though you'd be amazed at how successful the overbet for value is.
For all of this stuff, the most important consideration is a)what hands does he probably have, and b)how will he react with those.
The overbet for value usually works when there's a lot of reasonably strong hands your opponent can have that will call you. Overbet bluffing works well on boards where it's hard to be that confident. Overbet bluffing works especially well for me against THPers that know me, because they (quite reasonably) see how infrequently I make a large overbet and show down any non-monster. If a pot-sized bluff will get called 35% of the time it's profitable, but if in that same spot a 3xPot bet will only get called 5%, well, you see where this is going.
It's just the inverse of the reasoning for overbetting for value: optimum bet size is basically just a function of risk and reward, and while people are catching on that a massive, fairly rare payoff can be better than a small, certain one... a reasonable sized, almost certain payoff with occasional large losses can also trump a less risky, less rewarding bet.
Yeah, so that was very tangential to the OP, but it seemed reasonable enough to talk about anyway.
Though I do want to mention some nugget of wisdom, I can't remember who/where it came from(though I think it was either DS, or it could've been either Negreanu or Paul Phillips a while back) but it was basically commenting on how funny it is that people often tend to react precisely oppositely to a bet than how they should, folding too often to small "milk" bets and calling overbets too often as well.
|
|
