GCA "Bluffing and Betting"
Newgca
Bluffing is an art, especially in high stakes games. You just don't decide
you're going to bluff a hand on the river or the turn. Bluffs like this can be
read by the better players. The higher you go into poker hierarchy the harder
it is to bluff, or is it? Bluffing is a skill most players never achieve,
though many spend a lifetime attempting to learn.
Bluffing is something you plan on at the beginning of a hand, so you adjust
your play from the go. Bluffing on the final card or the turn and final card
just isn't the way to go. Good players will realize something is wrong with
the style of betting and most will take advantage of this. Proper bluffing
requires an attitude you apply as you start the hand. In your mind, you state
to yourself if I miss this flop, I will attempt to steal the pot.
Now this may sound easy, but it isn't as easy as it sounds. Most players don't
have the ability to realize when this type of bluffing can be utilized.
Obviously, just because you say you will bluff the pot, doesn't mean you will
succeed. Realizing or learning when the opportunity is right will help you
become a good bluffer.
If only people knew how important bluffing is at the higher limits it would
amaze them. The number one prerequisite to become a great bluffer is to become
a great value bettor. This can also sound easy, however it isn't. Great
bluffers and great value bettor's are also great readers of hands.
Value betting is what makes great bluffers. Having people call with sub par
hands means the person is dictating the betting. Sooner or later people get
tired of calling with second pair or bottom pair, or even Ace high. This is why
the best players are also the best bluffers and the best hand readers. This is
why betting, not calling is such an essential part of the game. This also shows
why position plays such a great part in the play.
Bluffing is not as important an issue in smaller limit games, as many times
there are too many people in the pot and there is almost zero chance a bluff
will succeed. In games like this you tend to adapt a style that basically
eliminates bluffing. You adopt a style of betting on the come, with proper
value. Seldom does an opportunity in low limit present itself for a pot to be
bluffed, but the opportunities do arise and those sensing or knowing can take
full advantage.
Simple examples of pretty obvious bluffing can be found in many of the pot
limit and no limit tournaments online. When flops such as 3H, JH, QS hit the
board with several players in the pot and a person from an opening position
leading out for a small percentage of the pot, this is a possible if not
probable indication of a weak hand. Many times in these online tournaments you
will notice 4 or 5 way action. There may be five people in the pot for $20,
making the pot $100. All of a sudden the person in front leads out with a $20
bet. What kind of bet is this? Think about it some more, what kind of bet is
this? What kind of hand would you have to make this kind of bet.
To tell you the truth, this bet is not even in the book. The person making this
type of bet can basically be considered a weak player. Now even a weak player
can surprise you. By the turn card his hand will normally be an open book. We
have gone down in the rank a little ways, actually a long ways to show you an
illustration of a bluff. Most of the time when a player bets $20 like this,
most of the players will call, unless one makes a play at the pot. Assuming
most players just call you can also assume most players are also weak.
Obviously, the possibility is ever present some player is slow playing, but the
possibility is also there this player is giving away a cheap card. Now you
don't have to have position in this hand as you can steal from the front or the
back. You just call and see what the next card brings. Obviously a brick,
meaning a card that wouldn't seem to help anything would be a very advantageous
card. Have a player come out betting 20 again, getting several callers again?
This is a great opportunity to make a move on the pot, whether you be in the
front, where you check and now raised, or the back where you now raise. You
don't even have to raise that much, a pot size bet should do the trick. Even if
you get called, it's odds-on the person is on the come, thus you'll know the
safe cards that will allow you to follow through on your bluff. Just follow
through and don't chicken out.
Watch how many times players make bets like this in these online tournaments.
Truthfully speaking, these bets don't exist. They are just pointless for if you
are sitting with anything why give any indication? And if you have anything and
wish to protect it, you would obviously bet the pot. Now betting the pot in a
position like this really doesn't give much away. It's easy to be on the come
here, just as easy to have a set. The hard thing or shall we say the stupid
thing is to be stone bluffing the pot from the front position. This is a
situation that will seldom if ever occur, so you might as well forget the
possibility.
However, many people having a pair, without much experience playing this game
attempt a maneuver to slow down the action and get a really cheap card. A
maneuver that is doomed to fail if anyone in the game can play at all. This is
one of the most obvious bluffs in these smaller limit tournaments and games.
The higher skilled bluffing will occur in a different matter, a player may
sense weakness from a limper or several limpers and raise a pot size bet,
knowing he is attempting to steal the pot if he misses the flop. Now bluffing
isn't for everyone. Many players can attempt a bluff but the real bluffers will
follow through. Many times players will attempt bluffs and other players will
sense this or think they sense this, thus raising a bluffer and taking away his
thunder. Now a better card reader will realize this attempt has been made and
will have the nerve or the confidence in his ability to realize this. He thus
follows through and proceeds to raise again or go all in, with nothing but his
gut feeling telling him he is making the correct play. These are the bluffers
in poker, these are the true players of the game. It doesn't take much of a
player to attempt a bluff, but step the play up one notch and you have a player
that will make a read he suspects the other player is bluffing. Now tell me you
haven't seen this when playing online or in a B&M? Many players like to show
they raise you with nothing. How many times have you wished you would have
raised them again, after you bet and they raised?
How many of you players have ever laid down a set on the flop playing Holdem,
without any flush or straight possibility? How many of you players have ever
laid down KK before the flop? Let me advise you of something, if you ever laid
a hand like this down against me, I own you. I have seen players think they are
being so smart laying hands like this down, their real mistake is in showing
this. Obviously an occasion will occur when a player will be so obvious this
lay down can be made, but if this player can be made to lay down hands like
this, show it also, he has no win.
Have any of you given much thought when a sizable bet is made preflop and you
hold AA? Is it really correct to go all in at this time? If you are guaranteed
a call, this is always acceptable. If you aren't, why raise? Allow the KK to
have the lead and bluff the money off, thinking he is betting the best hand.
Players are always far more eager to bet their chips off than to call.
The main mistake made by players who bluff in pot limit and no limit games is
the amount they bet. Use this as a normal guide line for bluffing. If the
blinds are $25-$50 and you opened for $150 and received a call. If you miss and
intend to bluff, follow through with a bet about equal to the pot. Also use
this as a guide for betting when you flop a big hand. The main train of thought
for betting and bluffing is thinking as the player who's facing you. If he
bets, think of what you would do with what type of hand, and adjust to the
play. Think of how you are being portrayed in the pot? Think of what kind of
image you have?
I am a firm believer in not being big on making big lay downs. The one reason
for this is I sense a possibility far earlier in a hand the player may have
something. To adjust for this, I slow the action down. There are many ways to
skin a cat. Realize not everyone can break a person who has KK when they hold
AA. Realize if you can't break a person when he has KK and you have AA, you
need some adjustment to your play. The number 1 best way to break KK is to have
him bet the chips off, while you call.
I don't know how many words I have written in this post, however I know I can
write a whole book about bluffing and betting. Hopefully many of you will get
the gist of this post. Anyone having legitimate questions, feel free to ask.
Russ Georgiev
Newgca
Paul
I have a question. How often do you bluff with position vs out of
position. How much more difficult do you find it to bluff without
position - and how does your strategy change.
Thanks
Paul
Vince lepore
>
This post was not about bluffing theory. I defy anyone even Russ the
genius himself to define the bluffing theory described in this post.
This guy, if he knows anything at all about bluffing, certainly didn't
tell us anything here. In fact his last statement is not about
bluffing it's about the opposite of bluffing. It's about letting your
opponent bet and calling with Aces when your the other guy has Kings.
Wow! What a concept! Someone should tell this guy that there is
already a book called Poker Farce. The poker world doesn't need
another one.
Vince
Russ Georgiev
It's like I have stated, bluffing is an art. It is actually easier to
bluff out of position since most people haven't the nerve or ability
to do this. Bluffing depends on the game and the opponent. Some times
the easiest people to bluff are the ones that always call, almost
always.
Russ Georgiev
Vince lepore
> deu...@mail.com (Paul) wrote in message news:<bd70cded.03071...@posting.google.com>...
> > I thought the post was a nice read, welcome back russ.
> >
> > I have a question. How often do you bluff with position vs out of
> > position. How much more difficult do you find it to bluff without
> > position - and how does your strategy change.
> >
> > Thanks
> >
> > Paul
>
> the easiest people to bluff are the ones that always call,>
>Russ Georgiev
Yes, the mark of a true artist. Bluff the guy that will call your bluff!
You really are nut case.
Vince
brett richey
large amount of people (aka. random clowns) who doubt russ's theory
posts. i am not a world class player, nor do i know russ other than
through posts i have dug up on google, yet i understand that his posts
make sense. there are a lot of people who seem to play 10-20 to 20-40
all their lives and think they know what poker's about. who is the
clown who said being a solid pro is about courage, and that 80% of
players know how to play? i am not saying i know what poker's about,
because i don't, but i realize that russ is a lot closer to the truth
than people talking about EV and the value of AQ in early position.
as far as cheating goes, i believe russ that cheating occurs in the
big games. how frequently it occurs, who cheats, whether the casino
allows it to happen, etc....i don't know and it's not my place to
guess. however, if you want to dismiss everything russ says because
he is an admitted cheat, then you only hurt yourselves.
you can delude yourselves all you want, the loss is yours and yours
alone. almost all players delude themselves into thinking that their
abilities are greater than they actually are(myself included).
however, when i see solid advice i don't immediately reject it based
on the history of the writer. if sklansky or another known writer had
written any of russ's theory posts you haters would've nutted
yourselves to be first in line to praise it as solid theory. and that
does not speak on the quality of the articles, but on how much people
will jock one person and hate on another here, and i've only been
reading for about a week. point is - ballers ball. -brett
SteadyEd O
>
>>Russ Georgiev
>
>Yes, the mark of a true artist. Bluff the guy that will call your bluff!
>You really are nut case.
>
>Vince
Ok this one even baffles me. Whats up with this Russ..Most of the time if
you are up against a calling station you really can't bluff them out. You
just have to show them a hand. They usually aren't good enough to respect your
bet... Usually its a good player who knows when to fold that can be bluffed..
I get bluffed at times however thats part of being a winning player...I also do
my fair share of bluffing... but not against calling stations...I figure you
have something to add to what you said.. lets hear it..
Russ Georgiev
Most of the time, calling stations don't have much and rely on being
able to bluff you. Keep playig back on these calling station, with
value betting. This is a skill you learn in poker. Tou also learn when
the calling station is on the come. This will give you opportuntities
to bet through a hand that would win the pot ( not a strong one)
because he knows the other guy will keep you honest. Problem is he is
on the come and can't beat a thing. Even calling stations need a high
card or a bottom pair or so to call. The skill will come when you read
them.
Russ Georgiev
Lee Munzer
"SteadyEd O" ...
> >The easiest people to bluff are the ones that always call,>
LOL. He finally said something I cannot argue with from a concept
standpoint or valuable to the reader basis, but almost everyone else
probably will debate him.
From a pure understanding of what the word "always" means, of course Russ
would be wrong. But, let's allow that he doesn't mean "always" especially
if he references high stakes PL poker. As an aside, he's an editor's
nightmare as that statement in a book would be awful.
But, allowing that my interpretation of what he means by "always" is
correct, then he is 100% correct. There are several seemingly paradoxical
statements in poker that are true if the opponent is a very good player. If
we take Russ at his word, he played stakes in B&M houses (for example
$200/400) where many opponents think well. He's not saying the $2/$4
calling station is the player to move on; he's probably allowing for big bet
poker (like PL); and he's saying the high stakes player who calls "too
much", but is observant and gives you (his opponent) credit for being
observant.
Okay, maybe I was wrong... Russ and I may be the only true WCPs here:-).
Lee
Lee Munzer
"Lee Munzer" >
> He's not saying the $2/$4 calling station is the player to move on; he's
probably allowing for big bet poker (like PL); and he's saying the high
stakes player who calls "too much", but is observant and gives you (his
opponent) credit for being observant.
I better qualify this statement as it could be interpreted as paradoxical
(and we really don't need a paradoxical statement attempting to explain a
paradoxical concept).
Many players are strong in certain areas, weak in others... yet they can win
in a regular $75/$150 game (or higher) because they usually get some fish to
fry. Thus, a player who calls too much may be a winning player because he
can read well and move people off hands, for example. Conversely, opponents
can't (in their mind) move him away. So, they do not try to bluff him and
he wins on the basis of aggression... both ways. So, not all players who
call too much can automatically be classified as losing players.
Back to Russ' point, since this player is somewhat surprised when you make a
reraise into him (for example) he gives you credit for realizing he is a
hard player to move off a hand and becomes a comparatively easy player to
bluff.
Lee
Vince lepore
> i am new to message boards about poker. however there seem to be a
> large amount of people (aka. random clowns) who doubt russ's theory
> posts. i am not a world class player,
You fit right in with the dumbos that take this guy seriously. I like
the part where you tell us that you are new to poker and then go on to
say that you are not a WCP. Duh! Russ's protege for sure.
> there are a lot of people who seem to play 10-20 to 20-40
> all their lives and think they know what poker's about. who is the
> clown who said being a solid pro is about courage, and that 80% of
> players know how to play?
I am the clown that made that statement, dummy. Let me give you a
little clue. You buddy Russ wouldn't stand a chance playing mid limit
or low limit poker. not a chance. He doesn't have a clue how to win
there. Ask him, if you don't believe me. If you don't believe at
least %80 of regular and frequent recreational poker players do not
know how to play poker you are kidding yourself. You are the clown.
> i am not saying i know what poker's about,
> because i don't, but i realize that russ is a lot closer to the truth
> than people talking about EV and the value of AQ in early position.
No he is not. Tell me how you "realize" that he is closer to the
truth. What truth?
> however, if you want to dismiss everything russ says because
> he is an admitted cheat, then you only hurt yourselves.
Really? And just how do we hurt ourselves?
>
> you can delude yourselves all you want, the loss is yours and yours
> alone. almost all players delude themselves into thinking that their
> abilities are greater than they actually are(myself included).
I can understand how someone with your thought process can delude
themselves. "Take him to a shrink"!
> however, when i see solid advice i don't immediately reject it based
> on the history of the writer.
What solid advice is that?
> if sklansky or another known writer had
> written any of russ's theory posts
Sklansky may be a bit looneyt himself but he would never write
anything that the cheat has written.
> point is - ballers ball. -brett
And looney's post about things of which they know nussing.
Vince
Peg Smith
lepo...@hotmail.com (Vince lepore) writes:
>...i am new to message boards about poker. however there seem to be a
>> large amount of people (aka. random clowns) who doubt russ's theory
>> posts. i am not a world class player,
>
>You fit right in with the dumbos that take this guy seriously. I like
>the part where you tell us that you are new to poker and then go on to
>say that you are not a WCP. Duh! Russ's protege for sure...
He didn't say he was new to poker, Vince.
Peg
Vince lepore
My mistake.
Vince
Vince lepore
of course he did say: "i am not saying i know what poker's about,
because i don't"
Well?
Vince
Russ Georgiev
Should have told Howard lederer this, maybe the guy wouldn't have laid
KK down before the flop.
Russ Georgiev
Vince lepore
You friggin idiot. you just proved my point about your post? Your
post had nothing in it that was worthwhile. I don't know what you are
referring to concening howard Lederer but from what I see you need
lessons from him? How many high buy in tournaments have you won, come
second, 44th... Howard Lederer plays high limits at Bellagio. you
blow smoke and say that you used to cheat at high limits... somewhere.
You are a lying scumbag. no more than that.
Vince
Peg Smith
>> He didn't say he was new to poker, Vince.
>>
>> Peg
>
>of course he did say: "i am not saying i know what poker's about,
>because i don't"
>
>Well?
Okay, I give. Insult away.
Peg
Russ Georgiev
> Bluffing and Betting
>
> Bluffing is an art, especially in high stakes games. You just don't decide
> you're going to bluff a hand on the river or the turn. Bluffs like this can be
> read by the better players. The higher you go into poker hierarchy the harder
> it is to bluff, or is it? Bluffing is a skill most players never achieve,
> though many spend a lifetime attempting to learn.
Stating Bluffing is an art, especially in high stakes games, would
definetly lead on to believe bluffing has lower value in small games.
>
> Bluffing is something you plan on at the beginning of a hand, so you adjust
> your play from the go. Bluffing on the final card or the turn and final card
> just isn't the way to go. Good players will realize something is wrong with
> the style of betting and most will take advantage of this. Proper bluffing
> requires an attitude you apply as you start the hand. In your mind, you state
> to yourself if I miss this flop, I will attempt to steal the pot.
>
> Now this may sound easy, but it isn't as easy as it sounds. Most players don't
> have the ability to realize when this type of bluffing can be utilized.
> Obviously, just because you say you will bluff the pot, doesn't mean you will
> succeed. Realizing or learning when the opportunity is right will help you
> become a good bluffer.
>
> If only people knew how important bluffing is at the higher limits it would
> amaze them. The number one prerequisite to become a great bluffer is to become
> a great value bettor. This can also sound easy, however it isn't. Great
> bluffers and great value bettor's are also great readers of hands.
Again I state how important bluffing is at high stakes games.
>
> Value betting is what makes great bluffers. Having people call with sub par
> hands means the person is dictating the betting. Sooner or later people get
> tired of calling with second pair or bottom pair, or even Ace high. This is why
> the best players are also the best bluffers and the best hand readers. This is
> why betting, not calling is such an essential part of the game. This also shows
> why position plays such a great part in the play.
>
> Bluffing is not as important an issue in smaller limit games, as many times
> there are too many people in the pot and there is almost zero chance a bluff
> will succeed. In games like this you tend to adapt a style that basically
> eliminates bluffing. You adopt a style of betting on the come, with proper
> value. Seldom does an opportunity in low limit present itself for a pot to be
> bluffed, but the opportunities do arise and those sensing or knowing can take
> full advantage.
Here I state bluffing is not that important a concept in smaller
games. What more than that poster who posted in favor of Vince Lepore
want? THis shows how many discrepancies he made while reading the
posts.
Vince lepore
> stea...@aol.com (SteadyEd O) wrote in message news:<20030719061244...@mb-m17.aol.com>...
> > >he easiest people to bluff are the ones that always call,>
> > >
> > >>Russ Georgiev
> to bet through a hand that would win the pot ( not a strong one)
> because he knows the other guy will keep you honest. Problem is he is
> on the come and can't beat a thing.
So you bluff a guy who is "on the come and can't beat a thing."
I see, so you are bluffing someone with a hand that he can't beat
anyway. Yeah, makes perfect sense to me.
Vince
Russ Georgiev
Have you any clue at all Vince? I bluff a person who has a hand made
who happens to have a person behind him. If I check, the person in the
middle wins the pot. So I bet through the strength into the weakness I
have seen. The person in the middle doesn't see the other person as
having nothing, so while I am not bluffing the last person, I am
bluffing the one with the best hand. Obviously the last person could
come over the top and steal my thunder, since I can't beat anything.
You are truly a piece of work.
Russ Georgiev
TWal289
>From: RussGe...@aol.com
>I bluff a person who has a hand made
>who happens to have a person behind him. If I check, the person in the
>middle wins the pot. So I bet through the strength into the weakness I
>have seen.
Its called "shooting thru the middle man".
Vince lepore
Lee,
You are giving russ far too much credit. You are describing a
situation in which you have no way of knowing whether he was referring
to it or not. A player that is deemed a calling station is not
consodered that way unless he habitually calls through the river.
Someone that plays a lot of hands is not necessarily a calling station
as you point out. I do agree that these players that call a lot early
on and are winners are among the better poker players. That said I
will also agree that it is a lot easier to move a good poker player
off of a hand than a weak calling station. If that is what Russ had
in mind I suppose he should have said so. Of course if he did say
that how could I make fun of him. Please stop helping him.
Vince