Runnin A Bluff

[bdc30 0]

Thoughts on this (semi?) bluff??I just read the raiser's bets as super weak and scared of the ace. I showed the bluff too...Poker StarsNo Limit Holdem TournamentBlinds: t75/t1509 playersConverterStack sizes:UTG: t3080Hero: t2630MP1: t2605MP2: t450MP3: t5382CO: t4340Button: t3188SB: t520BB: t4310Pre-flop: (9 players) Hero is UTG+1 with 6 6 UTG folds, Hero calls t150 (pot was t225), MP1 raises to t450, MP2 folds, MP3 calls t450 (pot was t825), 4 folds, Hero calls t300 (pot was t1275).Flop: 8 3 A (t1575, 3 players)Hero checks, MP1 bets t300, MP3 folds, Hero calls t300 (pot was t1875).Turn: 5 (t2175, 2 players)Hero checks, MP1 bets t450, Hero raises all-in t1880...

[NEtwowilldo 0]

Meh, pretty ballsy. If he has a higher pair than you though I don't see why he wouldn't check behind on the turn.

[copernicus 0]

I dont like it for 4 1/2 reasons:No pre-flop raise, which says at best a weak Ace (or could be a positive if youve shown an A from an EP limp before), a weak Ace pushing is overplaying the hand grossly.No bet on the flop with two spades on board. AA is amost always going to protect hereNo check raise on the flop. Back to at best a weak Ace.Villains betting is consistent with an Ace, which you have little chance of getting to fold or even a set, which you have no chance of getting to fold.You may well have best hand, so theres no need to risk a big bet to take down the pot.If I have 8s or better, theres no question Im calling. the story doesnt add up.

[YBravo 0]

This bluff is extremely risky. Your read has to be right on. Your opponent's opinion of your play has to be right on. And you have to make sure you're not playing against a POW (like me). You're representing exactly A-5, which isn't too unlikely, but you probably don't have it. That being said, you were right that his bet on the turn was very weak.

[ChrisRichey 1]

What hand are you representing here? As in, what hand are you trying to make MP1 think you have?

[TwoFourOffsuit 0]

Not a fan of the EP limp with a hand one probably shouldn't play EP to begin with. If you're gonna represent something better, you need to raise preflop from EP as if you have something better.

[bdc30 0]

What hand are you representing here? As in, what hand are you trying to make MP1 think you have?

A weak ace that hit. When he bet so little on the flop, it reeked to me of a smaller pair, maybe tens or something that was deathly afraid of the ace. He probably had me beaten, but with that junk bet, there was no way he had an ace. Even his flop bet was a scared one. Who bets like 1/5 pot with a hand that can stand a raise?

[copernicus 0]

Who bets like 1/5 pot with a hand that can stand a raise?

In a $10 sng? lots of hands that are trying to induce a raise or get some value.

[SlackerInc 0]

With these stacks and blinds, I think you either need to fold the small pair preflop or push with it.ETA: I retract the "or push with it" advice: see my subsequent post below.

[litlebullet 0]

With these stacks and blinds, I think you either need to fold the small pair preflop or push with it.

WTF? That's terrible advice! You can't just push those sixes utg preflop at this point of the sng. He has plenty of a stack that can still play and limp looking for that set. I can see folding, limping, or raising 3x the bb but never push 66 with that kind of stack. How many people in and how many left? Knowing that would help.To the OP: I wouldn't show off a bluff in a sng, ever! That's just asking for it.

[SlackerInc 0]

WTF? That's terrible advice! You can't just push those sixes utg preflop at this point of the sng. He has plenty of a stack that can still play and limp looking for that set. I can see folding, limping, or raising 3x the bb but never push 66 with that kind of stack.

If you go by HoH rules, you simply have to fold here: limping or making a standard raise from EP with small pairs are both considered terrible plays in the Yellow Zone. Because stacks are short, you don't have the implied odds to go fishing for a set; and in the great likelihood that you don't hit a set, your hand becomes nearly impossible to play postflop (you are virtually assured to be dealing with multiple overcards, and you are OOP to boot).But I've become taken lately with Arnold Snyder's Poker Tournament Formula, and off the top of my head I thought this would be a situation where he'd advocate pushing. But checking the text (p. 164), it looks like I was slightly off. The entire strategy for 11-20 BBs is as follows:"Any position: Raise or reraise all-in with 77-AA, AK-AJ, KQ-KT, and QJ.Late position: If first in, raise all-in with any two cards."So it's a little early to push with the 66 in EP, my bad. But the limp or standard raise suggestions are even worse, it seems clear to me.

[litlebullet 0]

agreed, folding is the best option, but I've been sort of toying around with the true power of stop and goes. UTG is not the position to try it but it's as powerful as hell most of the time from late positon. If I had the 6's from mid-late position I would have raised 4x bb then pushed any flop with 1 face card or less. If you play it that way then the raise becomes an option. But the limp from utg would never be the correct play, imho.

[SlackerInc 0]

If I had the 6's from mid-late position I would have raised 4x bb then pushed any flop with 1 face card or less.

I can see that being a good play. I'll have to work that in to my repertoire and see how it goes, thanks.

[copernicus 0]

If you go by HoH rules, you simply have to fold here: limping or making a standard raise from EP with small pairs are both considered terrible plays in the Yellow Zone. Because stacks are short, you don't have the implied odds to go fishing for a set; and in the great likelihood that you don't hit a set, your hand becomes nearly impossible to play postflop (you are virtually assured to be dealing with multiple overcards, and you are OOP to boot).But I've become taken lately with Arnold Snyder's Poker Tournament Formula, and off the top of my head I thought this would be a situation where he'd advocate pushing. But checking the text (p. 164), it looks like I was slightly off. The entire strategy for 11-20 BBs is as follows:"Any position: Raise or reraise all-in with 77-AA, AK-AJ, KQ-KT, and QJ.Late position: If first in, raise all-in with any two cards."So it's a little early to push with the 66 in EP, my bad. But the limp or standard raise suggestions are even worse, it seems clear to me.

I think youre overstating HoH a bit here, saying limping with a small pair is a "terrible play". Harrington calls for "caution" in playing small pairsm and that they are "less playable" in the YZ, but never says dont play them. If the table has generally been passive preflop and might get 2-3 limpers behind you, then limp/folding is not a bad play. The presence of the extra limpers creates implied odds for you.I agree folding PF in this hand is better though, because of the size of the SB stack. If you get a couple of limpers behind you, you have little chance of getting HU with the SB, which would be your main objective with a small pair here.

[ramenandeggs 0]

agreed, folding is the best option, but I've been sort of toying around with the true power of stop and goes. UTG is not the position to try it but it's as powerful as hell most of the time from late positon. If I had the 6's from mid-late position I would have raised 4x bb then pushed any flop with 1 face card or less. If you play it that way then the raise becomes an option. But the limp from utg would never be the correct play, imho.

yellow zone is when you have to take the risks. and if the table is pf passive, i think we can sometimes limp in EP with 66, even though it would be the worst option amongst folding/raising it would be a table dependent decision. there aren't many flops I'll like but because of that, I won't be putting any more money in without a strong hand (ie hitting a set). I doubt SNGs are more profitable from late position, you need to act early on the flop in order to have the first bet in. by letting your opponents from earlier positions sneak in a bet, they give themselves better pot odds to call your push.

[Gallo 1]

But I've become taken lately with Arnold Snyder's Poker Tournament Formula, and off the top of my head I thought this would be a situation where he'd advocate pushing. But checking the text (p. 164), it looks like I was slightly off. The entire strategy for 11-20 BBs is as follows:"Any position: Raise or reraise all-in with 77-AA, AK-AJ, KQ-KT, and QJ.Late position: If first in, raise all-in with any two cards."So it's a little early to push with the 66 in EP, my bad. But the limp or standard raise suggestions are even worse, it seems clear to me.

Has this book become popular? Asking only because I am starting to see this style of play quite a bit. I have started seeing people pushing/reraising with any pocket pair.

[copernicus 0]

Has this book become popular? Asking only because I am starting to see this style of play quite a bit. I have started seeing people pushing/reraising with any pocket pair.

I wouldnt be surprised if they are the best selling poker books behind Super System.

[SlackerInc 0]

I wouldnt be surprised if they are the best selling poker books behind Super System.

Really? Wow, I had no idea. I guess that will blunt its impact somewhat, huh.But why do you say "they"? Is there a companion piece?ETA: At least on Amazon, PTF is way, wayyy behind HoH (three hundred something vs. four thousand something) and a number of other poker books. Whew.

[Zach6668 513]

I'm pretty sure Cop is high, and is referring to the HOH series, not PTF.

[copernicus 0]

I'm pretty sure Cop is high, and is referring to the HOH series, not PTF.

Yes, I was referring to HoH. Slacker's liking it notwithstanding, I dont find it to be very sound after reading about 3/4 of it.

[SlackerInc 0]

Yes, I was referring to HoH. Slacker's liking it notwithstanding, I dont find it to be very sound after reading about 3/4 of it.

Well, the thing about it is--you can't really find it "sound" without more or less throwing out a lot of your (our) long-held beliefs. It's a cliche to say "the truth is somewhere in the middle" but I do think that might be the case here. Currently over at Snyder's board they are discussing Harrington vs. PTF. "Radar O'Reilly", Snyder's partner, wrote an interesting post comparing and contrasting the two:http://www.blackjackforumonline.com/w-agor...;key=1176056471I disagree with the claim that the two systems are fundamentally the same when chips are short (and I posted a "Huh??" response to that claim that hasn't been replied to yet). But I think ROR makes some very interesting points elsewhere in the post.Where I suspect there might be some "truth lies in the middle" is in the fact that Harrington advises running a bluff every, what, hour and a half? Also, I do think Harrington's "zones" are too tight in terms of when to start really taking big risks to keep your head above water (but I think Snyder's may go too far the other way).The most interesting claim in ROR's post is the explanation of Harrington's success: "Harrington, in playing to M, has been playing faster than most of his tournament opponents for much of his career." In a sense, he is being described as a transitional figure: he went halfway from the old tight strategy to loosening up when his M got low, but he didn't go far enough (just as he noted that a few years ago, many professionals didn't loosen up until they got to the Red Zone). How far is "just right"? I think that's still not totally determined (and of course it depends on how others play as well--reading Richard Dawkins' Selfish Gene and having an understanding of "evolutionary survival strategies" is helpful here in seeing how there can be equilibrium or seesawing depending on the dynamic). But while I don't take Snyder's book quite as gospel, I do think it is important in making me question HoH as gospel.I know in one of the first discussions I had on this board, there was a debate about these kinds of ideas (TAG vs. LAG) where I sided with the HoH/TAG camp very strenuously. But in retrospect, I think the LAG poster may have really had a point. Is there a way to go back and see one's old posts?BTW, thanks for the implied compliment in your post, Cop.

[copernicus 0]

The problem I have with the PTF, HoH and any other book is something that is only mentioned in passing, and non-mathematically. The key to any strategy isnt your cards, is linked to but not explicitly your position, and is linked to but not explicitly your stack...that key is your opponents'' calling, raising and re-raising ranges. No strategy that doesnt adapt to these is fated to be too loose or too aggressive.You see this expressed most often as "play the opposite of the nature of your table...loose when the table is tight, tight when the table is loose". 2+2ers, including Harrington have contributed to the success of "small ball players" because they have contributed to an emphasis on "tight is right", and playing opposite that style takes advantage of the overall higher fold equity you have. In RoR's post he talks about the under-representation of "HoH" players at final tables. He is right in believing that reflects a fundamental flaw in the approach, but doesnt explicitly identify "reverse fold equity" as being that flaw. It was recognized by someone..sorry dont remember who...in a sarcastic comment about "Gap theory". RoR also doesnt recognize that the under-representation of the tight strategies is a consequence of variance not the superiority of the looser styles. Think of the of the "survival curve" of tournament players as a fairly steep bell curve...a low left tail of those who flame out early, a very high but narrow middle representing the players who either bounce back and forth in stacks from high variance plays offsetting each other over time or low variance players (ie tight), and the big winners at the very small right tail of the curve. Those who emerge from the big bulge in the middle to the small tail on the right are more likely to be the high variance players who expose themselves to higher risk. For a tight player to emerge on the right takes more luck in terms of getting good starting hands, for a loose player to emerge into the right tail takes more luck in terms of hitting huge cards post flop or great post flop play (a lot harder to come by). The emphasis on post flop play that PTF and other "loose strategies" require, but is difficult to "systemize", is what makes them even more dangerous strategies for the learning player (which includes most of us here and at 2+2). While taking advantage of the tight players "reverse fold equity" does give them a small edge, that edge is easily wiped out by poor post flop play, and experience combined with a good sense for the math is what distinguishes the good post flop players from the bad ones. The tight strategies minimize post flop errors by playing fewer hands that can get you in trouble, and you survive longer, but get short and dont win the big one unless youre hit by the deck (ala a recent thread). Looser players ARE more likely to get to the FT...but not because of skill, and not because of the superiority of a loose style, but because they expose themselves to wider variance.Combine the steep payout structure of torunaments with the exposure to variance that loose players open themselves to, and the mathematical result greatly favors loose players winning the big money. Who will still be playing poker for a living in 20 years other than the true "naturals"? "Gamblers Ruin" says that its the tight players. In fact "playing to win" may be the most serious strategy flaw for the tight players. They should be playing to maximize their ROI, which means survival to the next prize level, not winning the whole thing, because the nature of their game limits their ability to win the whole thing.