Apologies, but I probably won’t have a chance to post the new podcast episode until Tuesday. In the meantime, here’s a fun hand I played last night. Villain is a talented player, think he may be at least semi-professional but in any event I’m sure he’s a winner in the game.
I’d already picked up on the fact that he knew what he was doing, but this was confirmed when he posted on 2+2 to brag about a crazy pot we played together that resulted in me opening JJ UTG and putting in 300 BB pre-flop against his QQ in the big blind. He had over 15K posts on there, though the majority seemed to be in the Puzzles and Other Games forum.
He’ll probably read this post, so I don’t want to go into a ton of detail about why I played it this way, but here’s the hand:
Blinds 5/10/20. I open Js 9s for $60 on the button, he makes $200 from the SB, others fold, I call.
Flop Kh Qs 6d. He bets $200, I call.
Turn 8c, we both check.
River As, he bets $400, I make it $1100, he agonizes and folds. I’m embarrassed to admit that I showed the bluff for no real reason other than to brag (which is of course the main reason I’m posting it here as well).
I generally think showing bluffs is almost always a mistake, but I’m less opposed to it than usual when you can show a good player that you have a balanced range in spots where a weaker player would almost always be playing in a 100% exploitable manner. It will have repercussions across a lot more circumstances than the particular one that brought it about, and I think, on average, they will be positie for you. Assuming this player did not know your skill level (big assumption, of course), this seems like that kind of spot.
I’m not saying showing here is worth a ton of EV, but I would guess it’s +EV, or at least a lot less -EV than most bluff shows.
m
Really? That seems backwards to me. If, for instance, V made a very exploitable fold in this spot because “no one ever bluffs this way”, showing him that I am the rare player who can bluff this way can only help him play better against me in the future, right?
I’ve certainly been wrong before. Could easily be wrong here.
My logic is that if you have a spot where you can show someone you are different than 95% of players (i.e. you will bluff-raise in spots where “nobody” bluff-raises), this will tend to advantage you across a whole host of spots of that classification. Next time you are OOP and the turn checks through and then you check the river, could you really have a value hand? No average player will be balanced there, they will have a bluffcatcher or a showdown hand basically every time. The very thought that *you* might be will certainly enter villains mind subsequent to showing an impossible bluff, and might get you credit for being more balanced than you actually are in those spots.
But maybe I have no idea what I’m talking about. Very possible. And certainly possible that this is all irrelevant at the stakes you play.
I guess my theory boils down to this: for some strategy S with that is exploitable at rate X, you improving your EV by signaling an X'< X.
I think this is almost certainly correct for, say, mediocre recreational players when playing with good recreational players. For instance, as soon as I see someone 3-barrel shove with air at $1/$2 NLHE, my entire impression of them changes, from my construction of their preflop ranges right down to their bluffcatching ability. There are many, many $1/$2 players who will *never* 3-barrel bluff-shove, and it correlates with all sorts of weak-tight unbalance behavior. Now, this may be *my* problem, but it seems pretty clear to me that if you are a weak-tight mediocre player and ever find yourself at my table, 3-barrel bluffing right away will have +EV consequences for you against me, regardless of whether you ever again deviate from your weak-tight game.
i’m more interested in how you got 300 bbs in pre with jj!
anyway, i 2p2-stalked the opponent and he seems to be on a huge downer in this game.
I never show winning bluffs, only losing bluffs. For example I C bet 72o on an AT4 board and get raised, I’ll fold and show the 72o.
The reason is there is value in showing a bluff when you lose, it gives the bluff some future implied value. However if you just muck the losing bluff it really has no value.
But showing a winning bluff…you just don’t make enough winning hands to want to induce light calls imo.
Sorry, but I don’t follow the logic here. To the extent that a bluff helps generate future action, why does it matter whether you won or lost with that bluff? And doesn’t showing a losing bluff still induce light calls? Better policy is just not to show, I think.
Andrew, what’s the effective stack going into the hand?
Don’t remember exactly, probably about $3000.
Why are you such an ego-fish these days? You think this is a game?
So Andrew responds to all the questions except the one the people care about. Give the people their answer!
Andrew,
I’m curious to ask what range of hands you put him on in order to execute a bluff like this?
My thoughts:
Pre-flop you’re in late position an open with decent holdings that plays well into multi-way pots. He re-pops to more than 3x your initial raise and you call. A hand like Js9s is going to play very well post flop especially against a hand that is making a decently large 3-bet out of position.
At this point I put him on TT through AA (including AK, AQ, AJ off and suited, KJ and QJ suited may be in there too).
Looking at the Flop, you’re 4 outs to a gut shot and 9 outs to a runner-runner 3rd nut flush. His flop bet definitely gives you odds to call (I think the pot is $430) and I view it as a feeler bet to see where Villain thinks he is at. AA, AK, AQ, KK, and QQ are all probably pretty happy with the flop and would more than likely make a larger raise than less than 1/2 the pot to protect their hand. That being said, I’m putting him on QJ, JJ, or TT and is scared of the one-two overs.
The check on the Turn is another sign of a mediocre hand. It’s always nice to see a free card with a drawing hand like yours. The Villain is probably shutting down after seeing your call, accepting that if he can get to a cheap showdown, his TT or JJ may be good. Pot is now $830.
On the River, he decides to bet out after seeing your check behind on the turn, deciding that your draw most likely missed. Another less than half-pot sized bet, and another sign of a mediocre holdings. You take this opportunity to re-raise, win, and show the bluff. You noted that he agonized over the decision indicating that he had a hand that would win some percentage of the time. Hard to say if the A on the River helped him but my guess is that it didn’t as he already showed signs of a marginal hand.
Thoughts?
I don’t play 10/20, so I could be way off here, but I think there are a a couple issues with your analysis, primarily based on Andrew’s claims that opponent is a solid player.
I think your 3bet range is way too tight and completely unbalanced. Opponent should know that Andrew’s opening very wide from the button and react by 3betting wide.
I also don’t think you can read as much into the flop bet sizing as you want to. Again if we’re trusting Andrew about the opponent being a good player, he should have a somewhat balanced range here.
it seems quite possible you were bluffing with the best hand.