| |
Main
Date: 13 Dec 2006 13:56:10
From: John_Brian_K
Subject: The Bluff
|
Hello All,
How often do you actually use the bluff when playing NLHE. I am
interested to hear what % of your stack you are willing to try and
bluff off in tourney or cash game. Ever willing to bluff of your whole
stack if you feel you have a good read?
Just curious to hear some thoughts on the subject which I believe is a
big/overly used/sometimes under used tactic in NLHE.
|
|
| |
Date: 13 Dec 22:39:38
From: Teabagger
Subject: Re: The Bluff
|
It depends what you call a bluff. Technically, a continuation bet would be
considered a bluff, and I do that virtually 100% of the time. In tourneys, I am
far more willing to bluff with the big stack. I haven't been playing well of
late - I've been taking too many shots. I am willing to bluff off my entire
stack given the correct situation and read. I have the best results tourney wise
when I play like Harrington pre-flop, but slightly more aggressive post-flop.
There are 2 ways to play - loose (like Gus Hansen), where your entire game is
essentially a series of small bluffs, but you get paid off huge on your big
hands, and tight, like harrington, where you rarely bluff, but you can pull off
big ones because of table image.
Playing like Hansen requires a tremendous amount of skill, but has a bigger
upside, but more fluctuation. Playing like Harrington requires less skill, but
has lower results, but less fluctuation.
On Dec 13 2006 4:56 PM, John_Brian_K wrote:
> Hello All,
>
> How often do you actually use the bluff when playing NLHE. I am
> interested to hear what % of your stack you are willing to try and
> bluff off in tourney or cash game. Ever willing to bluff of your whole
> stack if you feel you have a good read?
>
> Just curious to hear some thoughts on the subject which I believe is a
> big/overly used/sometimes under used tactic in NLHE.
_______________________________________________________________
New Feature: Mark All As Read! - http://www.recpoker.com
|
| | |
Date: 13 Dec 2006 15:16:23
From: MysteriAce
Subject: Re: The Bluff
|
> Playing like Harrington requires less skill, but
> has lower results, but less fluctuation.
You're kidding, right? Lower results?
You mean that winning 2.15 million at the Main Event in 2003-2004, not to
mention having been the 1995 world champion, are "lower results"? I mean,
I guess I could be missing the big picture or something ...
~ MysteriAce
"Ashes and diamonds
Foe and friend
We were all equal in the end"
______________________________________________________________________
* kill-files, watch-lists, favorites, and more.. www.recgroups.com
|
| | |
Date: 13 Dec 23:02:03
From: Nick Wool
Subject: Re: The Bluff
|
On Dec 13 2006 10:39 PM, Teabagger wrote:
>
> It depends what you call a bluff. Technically, a continuation bet would be
> considered a bluff, and I do that virtually 100% of the time. In tourneys, I
> am
> far more willing to bluff with the big stack. I haven't been playing well of
> late - I've been taking too many shots. I am willing to bluff off my entire
> stack given the correct situation and read. I have the best results tourney
> wise
> when I play like Harrington pre-flop, but slightly more aggressive post-flop.
>
> There are 2 ways to play - loose (like Gus Hansen), where your entire game is
> essentially a series of small bluffs, but you get paid off huge on your big
> hands, and tight, like harrington, where you rarely bluff, but you can pull
> off
> big ones because of table image.
>
> Playing like Hansen requires a tremendous amount of skill, but has a bigger
> upside, but more fluctuation. Playing like Harrington requires less skill, but
> has lower results, but less fluctuation.
>
First, leading out with a bet 100% of the time after raising preflop is not good
play, escpecially multi-handed. But even in a heads-up pot, you are going to be
trapped if your opponent has a hand, and risk being played back a lot of the
time if he hasn't. Great if you connect with the flop in a big way, but how
often does that happen?
Second, playing winning poker takes a lot of skill, whatever strategy you use,
be tight or loose, passive or aggressive. I think good players mix their games
up more often than you might realise anyway.
To implied (if you did imply it) that Hansen is more skillful than Harrington
because he plays a looser game is probably silly. Hansen may get away with a
lot of his loose aggressive play in tournaments, because a lot of players would
not want to risk the chance of busting and call with small edges. However, I
doubt if Hansen can get away playing with the same strategy in cash games. In
fact, I would hazzard a guess that should Hansen play in a similar way in cash
games, he would be eaten alive by the top players.
_______________________________________________________________
Watch Lists, Block Lists, Favorites - http://www.recpoker.com
|
| | | |
Date: 14 Dec 2006 09:53:33
From: Kinnipak
Subject: Re: The Bluff
|
On Dec 13 2006 5:02 PM, Nick Wool wrote:
> On Dec 13 2006 10:39 PM, Teabagger wrote:
>
> >
> > It depends what you call a bluff. Technically, a continuation bet would be
> > considered a bluff, and I do that virtually 100% of the time. In tourneys,
I
> > am
> > far more willing to bluff with the big stack. I haven't been playing well
of
> > late - I've been taking too many shots. I am willing to bluff off my entire
> > stack given the correct situation and read. I have the best results tourney
> > wise
> > when I play like Harrington pre-flop, but slightly more aggressive
post-flop.
> >
> > There are 2 ways to play - loose (like Gus Hansen), where your entire game
is
> > essentially a series of small bluffs, but you get paid off huge on your big
> > hands, and tight, like harrington, where you rarely bluff, but you can pull
> > off
> > big ones because of table image.
> >
> > Playing like Hansen requires a tremendous amount of skill, but has a bigger
> > upside, but more fluctuation. Playing like Harrington requires less skill,
but
> > has lower results, but less fluctuation.
> >
>
> First, leading out with a bet 100% of the time after raising preflop is not
good
> play, escpecially multi-handed. But even in a heads-up pot, you are going
to be
> trapped if your opponent has a hand, and risk being played back a lot of the
> time if he hasn't. Great if you connect with the flop in a big way, but how
> often does that happen?
>
> Second, playing winning poker takes a lot of skill, whatever strategy you
use,
> be tight or loose, passive or aggressive. I think good players mix their
games
> up more often than you might realise anyway.
>
> To implied (if you did imply it) that Hansen is more skillful than Harrington
> because he plays a looser game is probably silly. Hansen may get away with a
> lot of his loose aggressive play in tournaments, because a lot of players
would
> not want to risk the chance of busting and call with small edges. However, I
> doubt if Hansen can get away playing with the same strategy in cash games.
In
> fact, I would hazzard a guess that should Hansen play in a similar way in
cash
> games, he would be eaten alive by the top players.
"However, I
> doubt if Hansen can get away playing with the same strategy in cash games.
In
> fact, I would hazzard a guess that should Hansen play in a similar way in
cash
> games, he would be eaten alive by the top players."
High Stakes Poker Season Two I believe....Hanson sits, Hansen plays, and
Hansen wins quite a bit of money. I'm certainly not saying he is a great
cash game player, but to suggest that he can't hold his own with the
others is bit beyond the envelope.
Now if you are talking Hellmuth......
------
looking for a better newsgroup-reader? - www.recgroups.com
|
| | | | |
Date: 14 Dec 18:16:56
From: Nick Wool
Subject: Re: The Bluff
|
On Dec 14 2006 5:53 PM, Kinnipak wrote:
> On Dec 13 2006 5:02 PM, Nick Wool wrote:
>
> > On Dec 13 2006 10:39 PM, Teabagger wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > It depends what you call a bluff. Technically, a continuation bet would be
> > > considered a bluff, and I do that virtually 100% of the time. In tourneys,
> I
> > > am
> > > far more willing to bluff with the big stack. I haven't been playing well
> of
> > > late - I've been taking too many shots. I am willing to bluff off my
> > > entire
> > > stack given the correct situation and read. I have the best results
> > > tourney
> > > wise
> > > when I play like Harrington pre-flop, but slightly more aggressive
> post-flop.
> > >
> > > There are 2 ways to play - loose (like Gus Hansen), where your entire game
> is
> > > essentially a series of small bluffs, but you get paid off huge on your
> > > big
> > > hands, and tight, like harrington, where you rarely bluff, but you can
> > > pull
> > > off
> > > big ones because of table image.
> > >
> > > Playing like Hansen requires a tremendous amount of skill, but has a
> > > bigger
> > > upside, but more fluctuation. Playing like Harrington requires less skill,
> but
> > > has lower results, but less fluctuation.
> > >
> >
> > First, leading out with a bet 100% of the time after raising preflop is not
> good
> > play, escpecially multi-handed. But even in a heads-up pot, you are going
> to be
> > trapped if your opponent has a hand, and risk being played back a lot of the
> > time if he hasn't. Great if you connect with the flop in a big way, but how
> > often does that happen?
> >
> > Second, playing winning poker takes a lot of skill, whatever strategy you
> use,
> > be tight or loose, passive or aggressive. I think good players mix their
> games
> > up more often than you might realise anyway.
> >
> > To implied (if you did imply it) that Hansen is more skillful than
> > Harrington
> > because he plays a looser game is probably silly. Hansen may get away with
> > a
> > lot of his loose aggressive play in tournaments, because a lot of players
> would
> > not want to risk the chance of busting and call with small edges. However,
> > I
> > doubt if Hansen can get away playing with the same strategy in cash games.
> In
> > fact, I would hazzard a guess that should Hansen play in a similar way in
> cash
> > games, he would be eaten alive by the top players.
>
> "However, I
> > doubt if Hansen can get away playing with the same strategy in cash games.
> In
> > fact, I would hazzard a guess that should Hansen play in a similar way in
> cash
> > games, he would be eaten alive by the top players."
>
> High Stakes Poker Season Two I believe....Hanson sits, Hansen plays, and
> Hansen wins quite a bit of money. I'm certainly not saying he is a great
> cash game player, but to suggest that he can't hold his own with the
> others is bit beyond the envelope.
>
> Now if you are talking Hellmuth......
Was he just as reckless as he was in tourneys? I was not suggesting Hansen
cannot play against the top players in a cash games, I said that he would be
eaten alive if he adpots the same strategy he uses in tourneys. A big
difference...:-)
But even if Hansen did win one session playing fast and loose, it doesnt prove a
thing. Give me enough good cards, and even I could win in a single session
against anyone. We all know that winning or losing in the short term doesnt say
anything about a player's skill level. If Hansen can consistanly win in cash
games against the top players by playing fast and loose, then you would have a
point.
_______________________________________________________________
New Feature: Mark All As Read! - http://www.recpoker.com
|
| | | | | |
Date: 14 Dec 2006 10:38:17
From: Kinnipak
Subject: Re: The Bluff
|
On Dec 14 2006 12:16 PM, Nick Wool wrote:
> On Dec 14 2006 5:53 PM, Kinnipak wrote:
>
> > On Dec 13 2006 5:02 PM, Nick Wool wrote:
> >
> > > On Dec 13 2006 10:39 PM, Teabagger wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > > It depends what you call a bluff. Technically, a continuation bet
would be
> > > > considered a bluff, and I do that virtually 100% of the time. In
tourneys,
> > I
> > > > am
> > > > far more willing to bluff with the big stack. I haven't been playing
well
> > of
> > > > late - I've been taking too many shots. I am willing to bluff off my
> > > > entire
> > > > stack given the correct situation and read. I have the best results
> > > > tourney
> > > > wise
> > > > when I play like Harrington pre-flop, but slightly more aggressive
> > post-flop.
> > > >
> > > > There are 2 ways to play - loose (like Gus Hansen), where your entire
game
> > is
> > > > essentially a series of small bluffs, but you get paid off huge on your
> > > > big
> > > > hands, and tight, like harrington, where you rarely bluff, but you can
> > > > pull
> > > > off
> > > > big ones because of table image.
> > > >
> > > > Playing like Hansen requires a tremendous amount of skill, but has a
> > > > bigger
> > > > upside, but more fluctuation. Playing like Harrington requires less
skill,
> > but
> > > > has lower results, but less fluctuation.
> > > >
> > >
> > > First, leading out with a bet 100% of the time after raising preflop is
not
> > good
> > > play, escpecially multi-handed. But even in a heads-up pot, you are going
> > to be
> > > trapped if your opponent has a hand, and risk being played back a lot of
the
> > > time if he hasn't. Great if you connect with the flop in a big way, but
how
> > > often does that happen?
> > >
> > > Second, playing winning poker takes a lot of skill, whatever strategy you
> > use,
> > > be tight or loose, passive or aggressive. I think good players mix their
> > games
> > > up more often than you might realise anyway.
> > >
> > > To implied (if you did imply it) that Hansen is more skillful than
> > > Harrington
> > > because he plays a looser game is probably silly. Hansen may get away
with
> > > a
> > > lot of his loose aggressive play in tournaments, because a lot of players
> > would
> > > not want to risk the chance of busting and call with small edges.
However,
> > > I
> > > doubt if Hansen can get away playing with the same strategy in cash
games.
> > In
> > > fact, I would hazzard a guess that should Hansen play in a similar way in
> > cash
> > > games, he would be eaten alive by the top players.
> >
> > "However, I
> > > doubt if Hansen can get away playing with the same strategy in cash
games.
> > In
> > > fact, I would hazzard a guess that should Hansen play in a similar way in
> > cash
> > > games, he would be eaten alive by the top players."
> >
> > High Stakes Poker Season Two I believe....Hanson sits, Hansen plays, and
> > Hansen wins quite a bit of money. I'm certainly not saying he is a great
> > cash game player, but to suggest that he can't hold his own with the
> > others is bit beyond the envelope.
> >
> > Now if you are talking Hellmuth......
>
> Was he just as reckless as he was in tourneys? I was not suggesting Hansen
> cannot play against the top players in a cash games, I said that he would be
> eaten alive if he adpots the same strategy he uses in tourneys. A big
> difference...:-)
agreed.
> But even if Hansen did win one session playing fast and loose, it doesnt
prove a
> thing. Give me enough good cards, and even I could win in a single session
> against anyone. We all know that winning or losing in the short term doesnt
say
> anything about a player's skill level. If Hansen can consistanly win in cash
> games against the top players by playing fast and loose, then you would have
a
> point.
and agreed again.
-----
* kill-files, watch-lists, favorites, and more.. www.recgroups.com
|
| |
Date: 15 Dec 2006 00:03:58
From: ben carr
Subject: Re: The Bluff
|
I bluff only when I see a reason to. Most beginners bluff just when they
want to. I need to know he will lay it down. You must know the player.
Never bluff a call station. That seems simple, but too many people dont
pay attention to that. Bluffing isnt something that should happen often.
As for how much I am willing to bluff? All of my money. IF the time is
right and the bluff will work for sure then I will put it all in if
thats what it takes. Otherwise I would bluff the minimum amount that
will take down the pot. This means you again need to know your opponent.
|
|
