|
||
|
||
|
Server Time: 11/21/2008 2:36:06 AM PACIFIC |
 Semi-bluffing, shorn, 18. Mar 2003 07:17 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| I have just been re-reading the semi-bluffing section in S&M's Hold'em for Advanced Players (21st Century addition) and have come accross a situation where they recommend a semi-bluff that I don't agree with and I wanted other player's thoughts. I hold A3s and the flop comes Q63 rainbow with six players. So, I have 3rd pair, an overcard, and 3 to the flush. They recommend a bet here agains "typical" players. I think this is a low EV play (despite the ragged flop) as with 6 opponents, one of two things will happen: you will only get 1 or two callers (making your five outer + redraw) which isn't enough to warrant a value bet, or someone will raise you and you will have to pay a full BB to see the turn or fold. In my opinion, there is little chance that everyone will fold which is a key tenet to the semi-bluff. I am curious as to others thoughts on this specific example. Thanks, Steve | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Semi-bluffing, Andrew Wells, 18. Mar 2003 09:04 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| Their "typical" player (this is 10-20 and above) is expected to have most often either raised or folded a hand with a queen depending on kicker. This implies that it is less likely someone will be holding a queen and have called preflop. You're probably only going to be raised by someone who flopped a small set, and I think you have about a 25% chance that no one will have anything that can continue beyond the flop. Actually I like this A3s as a checkraise semibluffing hand provided there is an aggressive player in last position who would try to pick up the pot on the flop. I'm assuming the A3s got a "free" look at the flop from the big blind. | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Semi-bluffing, shorn, 18. Mar 2003 09:12 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| on 18. Mar 2003 09:04 Andrew Wells wrote: > Their "typical" player (this is 10-20 and above) is expected to have most often > either raised or folded a hand with a queen depending on kicker. This implies that it > is less likely someone will be holding a queen and have called preflop. You're > probably only going to be raised by someone who flopped a small set, and I think you > have about a 25% chance that no one will have anything that can continue beyond the > flop. Actually I like this A3s as a checkraise semibluffing hand provided there is an > aggressive player in last position who would try to pick up the pot on the flop. I'm > assuming the A3s got a "free" look at the flop from the big blind. I agree with what you have said. However, AQ, KQ, and QJ can be calling hands form late position with this many players in. So, there is a chance that someone out there holds top pair. I think the best play is either the CR that you suggest above (although you are not likely to get a free card on the turn if you check then) or to check/call if your odds are there (potentially 5 outs, so 8.5 to 1) or check/fold if the odds aren't there. I was assuming that the A3s got the free look from the blind. | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Semi-bluffing, stdioh, 18. Mar 2003 09:25 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| > I agree with what you have said. However, AQ, KQ, and QJ can be calling hands form late > position with this many players in. So, there is a chance that someone out there holds > top pair. I think the best play is either the CR that you suggest above (although you are > not likely to get a free card on the turn if you check then) or to check/call if your odds > are there (potentially 5 outs, so 8.5 to 1) or check/fold if the odds aren't there. I was > assuming that the A3s got the free look from the blind. This is what makes it a semi-bluff. Generally, a decent player is going to raise his AQ and all you're really worried about is KQ and maybe QJ. That said, they can't really raise you with the latter two hands, so you're likely to either fold everybody or get a caller. This is why it is a semi-bluff...if you were planning to fold everybody or no good then it would just be a bluff. Now if you hit an ace or a three, you're golden and if you make a flush draw, you can probably get your last card for free. If you hit nothing, then you'll probably still be able to get a free card or if your reads are good you might be able to fold your opponent on the turn. The point is that even if you get a caller you've got control. If you get raised, then you can dump your little piggy cards on the flop. | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Semi-bluffing, shorn, 18. Mar 2003 09:34 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| on 18. Mar 2003 09:25 stdioh wrote: > > I agree with what you have said. However, AQ, KQ, and QJ can be calling hands form late > > position with this many players in. So, there is a chance that someone out there holds > > top pair. I think the best play is either the CR that you suggest above (although you are > > > not likely to get a free card on the turn if you check then) or to check/call if your odds > > > are there (potentially 5 outs, so 8.5 to 1) or check/fold if the odds aren't there. I was > > > assuming that the A3s got the free look from the blind. > > This is what makes it a semi-bluff. Generally, a decent player is going to raise his AQ and > all you're really worried about is KQ and maybe QJ. That said, they can't really raise you with > the latter two hands, so you're likely to either fold everybody or get a caller. This is why it > is a semi-bluff...if you were planning to fold everybody or no good then it would just be a > bluff. Now if you hit an ace or a three, you're golden and if you make a flush draw, you can > probably get your last card for free. If you hit nothing, then you'll probably still be able to > get a free card or if your reads are good you might be able to fold your opponent on the turn. > The point is that even if you get a caller you've got control. If you get raised, then you can > dump your little piggy cards on the flop. I don't know. I think you could be raised by someone with KQ or QJ because they would want anyone holding an Ace to make a mistake by calling to hit, so to me it seems more risky. I follow your "take control" logic and agree for the most part; the only thing I don't like is the number of people in the pot...this significantly reduces your chances of winning it on the flop, and therefore (IMHO) shoud prevent you from betting. Also, I am not sure I agree that a player in late position will raise with AQo after 4 or 5 people have already called, so you essentially are drawing dead to the flush. | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Semi-bluffing, Andrew Wells, 18. Mar 2003 09:53 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| It's only less likely someone will have a queen with no preflop raise. Sure you could get called by someone playing a QJ, but you are trying to pick up a pot with seven small bets in it. You only need to improve to the best hand or win it immediately about one time in five (allowing for redraws to beat you if someone else has ace-rag and catches their kicker on the river). You have good expectation that you will win this hand more than 20% of the time, but only if you play it aggressively. | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Semi-bluffing, shorn, 18. Mar 2003 10:55 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| on 18. Mar 2003 09:53 Andrew Wells wrote: > It's only less likely someone will have a queen with no preflop raise. Sure you could get called by > someone playing a QJ, but you are trying to pick up a pot with seven small bets in it. You only need to > improve to the best hand or win it immediately about one time in five (allowing for redraws to beat you > if someone else has ace-rag and catches their kicker on the river). You have good expectation that you > will win this hand more than 20% of the time, but only if you play it aggressively. I agree that it is less likely someone has top pair in an unraised pot if the the pot comes Q or higher. But that likelihood has to decline as the number of players in the hand increase. Again, if you were on the button and held KQ or AQ and 5 players had called, would you raise? I wouldn't because you would be giving implied odds for callers on the flop by increasing the pot size. So, I agree with your strategy of being aggressive in this hand if there are two or even three other players. When there are six, I think it is more likely that you are behind so you probably have no chance to win it right there. You might consider this a weak play, but I think it is a money saver longer-term. | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Semi-bluffing, stdioh, 18. Mar 2003 13:44 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| on 18. Mar 2003 10:55 shorn wrote: > on 18. Mar 2003 09:53 Andrew Wells wrote: > > It's only less likely someone will have a queen with no preflop raise. Sure you could get called by > > someone playing a QJ, but you are trying to pick up a pot with seven small bets in it. You only need to > > improve to the best hand or win it immediately about one time in five (allowing for redraws to beat you > > if someone else has ace-rag and catches their kicker on the river). You have good expectation that you > > will win this hand more than 20% of the time, but only if you play it aggressively. > > I agree that it is less likely someone has top pair in an unraised pot if the the pot comes Q or higher. But > that likelihood has to decline as the number of players in the hand increase. Again, if you were on the > button and held KQ or AQ and 5 players had called, would you raise? I wouldn't because you would be giving > implied odds for callers on the flop by increasing the pot size. So, I agree with your strategy of being > aggressive in this hand if there are two or even three other players. When there are six, I think it is more > likely that you are behind so you probably have no chance to win it right there. You might consider this a > weak play, but I think it is a money saver longer-term. I think that we have a philosophical difference in our styles of poker. I'm not saying that you are wrong, but I am saying that if you don't play creatively, you really limit your expected take from a good game. In this case, I think that you are being too conservative. As Andrew points out, you only need it to work 1/5 times and you're ahead of the game. This is a situation where I would look at the table texture and look at my opponents - the human aspect is so important here. I's say that 50% of the time I can tell you if there is a queen at the table - I think there is a queen then I don't make the move - I think there's a good chance of no queen then I give it a go. I take any heat and I'm out of there minus one small bet. | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Semi-bluffing, shorn, 19. Mar 2003 05:41 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| on 18. Mar 2003 13:44 stdioh wrote: > on 18. Mar 2003 10:55 shorn wrote: > > on 18. Mar 2003 09:53 Andrew Wells wrote: > > > It's only less likely someone will have a queen with no preflop raise. Sure you could get called by > > > someone playing a QJ, but you are trying to pick up a pot with seven small bets in it. You only need to > > > improve to the best hand or win it immediately about one time in five (allowing for redraws to beat you > > > if someone else has ace-rag and catches their kicker on the river). You have good expectation that you > > > will win this hand more than 20% of the time, but only if you play it aggressively. > > > > I agree that it is less likely someone has top pair in an unraised pot if the the pot comes Q or higher. But > > that likelihood has to decline as the number of players in the hand increase. Again, if you were on the > > button and held KQ or AQ and 5 players had called, would you raise? I wouldn't because you would be giving > > implied odds for callers on the flop by increasing the pot size. So, I agree with your strategy of being > > aggressive in this hand if there are two or even three other players. When there are six, I think it is more > > likely that you are behind so you probably have no chance to win it right there. You might consider this a > > weak play, but I think it is a money saver longer-term. > > I think that we have a philosophical difference in our styles of poker. I'm not saying that you are wrong, but I > am saying that if you don't play creatively, you really limit your expected take from a good game. In this case, I > think that you are being too conservative. As Andrew points out, you only need it to work 1/5 times and you're > ahead of the game. This is a situation where I would look at the table texture and look at my opponents - the human > aspect is so important here. I's say that 50% of the time I can tell you if there is a queen at the table - I think > there is a queen then I don't make the move - I think there's a good chance of no queen then I give it a go. I take > any heat and I'm out of there minus one small bet. Fair enough. I am generally a conservative player, but I tend to win around 2 BB per hour in a normal game. Perhaps if I modify slightly as in these situations I could do better. I appreciate the input though. | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Semi-bluffing, stdioh, 19. Mar 2003 08:23 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| > Fair enough. I am generally a conservative player, but I tend to win around 2 BB per hour in a normal game. Perhaps > if I modify slightly as in these situations I could do better. I appreciate the input though. Well, if you're consistently taking 2 BB/hour from a game that's not played in the back of a short bus, then you're a better player than I, so fair enough. I make about 1.5 BB/hour and think I'm pretty special for that :) | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Semi-bluffing, shorn, 19. Mar 2003 08:27 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| Thanks for the compliment stdioh, but 1.5 to 2 bets is pretty even. I also could be on a good rush of cards lately which has bumped my average. Anyway, poker is all about balancing strategy anyway, so i have to remind myself to always re-evaluate and look for ways to improve my game. | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Semi-bluffing, Andrew Wells, 18. Mar 2003 14:58 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| There's also the added value you get if you happen to win the pot in a showdown. Making this sort of play goes a long way towards being harder to read on future hands. You will also likely get more action when you later flop something premium out of your blinds. Now if this were a straightforward 3-6 game there's no way I would lead on the flop. Maybe a checkraise if I felt the conditions were right, or even a checkraise on the turn if I improved the hand. I don't know how much time you've put in at 10-20 or 15-30 limits, but the players there in general need to be shown some unpredictability since you usually find opponents at least thinking about what you are trying to do. The better players will of course know what is going on, but you can't afford to be easy to fold against in the long run. | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Semi-bluffing, shorn, 19. Mar 2003 05:43 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| on 18. Mar 2003 14:58 Andrew Wells wrote: > There's also the added value you get if you happen to win the pot in a showdown. Making this sort of play goes a > long way towards being harder to read on future hands. You will also likely get more action when you later flop > something premium out of your blinds. Now if this were a straightforward 3-6 game there's no way I would lead on > the flop. Maybe a checkraise if I felt the conditions were right, or even a checkraise on the turn if I improved > the hand. I don't know how much time you've put in at 10-20 or 15-30 limits, but the players there in general need > to be shown some unpredictability since you usually find opponents at least thinking about what you are trying to > do. The better players will of course know what is going on, but you can't afford to be easy to fold against in the > long run. I play mostly at the 3-6 and 5-10 level online, but 10-20 and 15-30 in a B&M if the game is good. In those games, you are probably right that leading out might work more often, but I guess I am more conservative in my approach which from what you say, may be costing me some pots. Thanks for the input. | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| POKER FORUM HOME | POKER FORUM | LINK TO US | ARCHIVE | ONLINE POKER | Copyright 2002, United Poker Forum |
|
Getting Started |
UPF Tournaments |
Poker News, Views, Rules |
Poker Strategy & Psychology |
Money and Bankroll Poker Bonuses & Promotions | World Series of Poker (WSOP) | Play Online Poker | Poker Odds & Statistics | Tournament Poker | Poker Books, Videos & Learning Tools Looking for a Poker Game | Poker Bad Beats | Not Quite Poker | Quizzes and Polls | Forum Suggestions & Bugs |
|
|
|
|
Interesting Links: Online Poker | Free Poker Games | United Poker Network |
|