are bluffs sizes supposed to be bigger than value sizes?
if balance my value bet size to bluff size, and I choose sizes that will get called, then then by definition
that size isn't good for my bluffs.
when I bluff, I generally go for larger sizing's then I would for value.
someone paying attention to me could probably exploit me by seeing large bets as a possible bluff red flag.
I do occasionally keep the extra-large bets for value too, even though i think I'm losing value to weaker hands that would
call smaller bets, I'm trying to balance my extra big bet range somewhat.
my ideal value bet size vs my opponent will depend on what I think they have, but
generally, it's going to the largest I think I can get away with, that they will still call, hence by definition
I couldn't use this size as a bluff.
I want my bluffs to generally be big enough to discourage all calling. is that the right attitude behind bluffs?
Here's an example of what I'm talking about:
llsnl $1/$2 8max (somewhere in florida)
H is CO with QJo and V is HJ.
300 effective stacks
v limps H raises to 10 v calls.
flop is Kh 4h 4 (hero has no hearts)
x h bet 10 v calls
turn is 6h
x x
river is K
v bets 15 h raises to 100
v folds A4o face up bitching about bad dealer.
thoughts on hand or my weird thoughts?
12 Replies
Thoughts are fine, hand is weird
I don’t play against any that doesn’t call this bluff, even with my tight image.
My thoughts:
To me it’s more about contemplating value. If I’m trying to get called, what size would he not call? Bluff or value - you consider both sizes always and use that info to make a decision.
Sometimes when you’re about to fold, you realize that villain can’t call and a bluff is the right choice.
Yes, they may realize that you bluff more with big sizes, but if you pick your spots, they will still fold. Don’t worry about that.
I would consider the smallest size that will still get folds - no need to bet $500 into a $40 pot
I never worry about balancing - nobody notices, nobody cares and if you’re bluffing too often, it will catch up with you.
Everyone loves thoughts of bluffing, but it’s important to remember that you win by gaining more value than your opponents. Being able to run people off of hands is great (I’m good at it), but getting a big value bet called on the river is a superpower.
Probably the best advice that anyone can give you is simply that if it’s working, keep doing it. Don’t let advice, solvers, theory or anyone on this forum change your mind.
Winning isn’t everything, it’s the only thing.
if balance my value bet size to bluff size, and I choose sizes that will get called, then then by definition
that size isn't good for my bluffs.
when I bluff, I generally go for larger sizing's then I would for value.
This makes sense, but there are two problems with it. One is the exploitability that you mention. Your bluff size has to be something that you would at least do sometimes with value, or your story doesn't make sense. You don't have to be perfectly balanced, but you do have to be believable.
The second is that there is a crossover point where you actually can lose EV even if your fold equity goes up due to getting folds more often, because you are losing a bigger amount when you do get called. Finding that sweet spot when your bluff generates the maximum FE for the minimum risk is far more art than science, but it's a concept you need to keep in mind.
As a corollary to the above, raising the sizing on your value bets can actually increase EV, even though they get called less often. Let us imagine a pot of $100 and that you have the nuts and you estimate that if you bet 1/4 pot you'll get called three quarters of the time, whereas if you bet a chunky 3/4 pot, you'll only get called one third of the time. Usually getting called seems much better, but if you run the numbers, 75% of $25 is an EV of $18.75, whereas 33.33% of $75 is an EV $25.
A large bet, particularly on the river, represents a narrower range. Here you are representing a K on KK44x to try to get a 4 to fold. Generally, it is not a good idea to try to get a low stakes player to fold a full house. Also, in other situations, a bluff is often more believable if it is smaller, because it represents a wider range. You need to be careful representing the nuts when your other action may make it unlikely that you have it. A smaller bluff also needs to work less often to be profitable.
Try watching hungry horse on youtube. He talks about how bluffing works.
At the end of the day it's alot about opponents ranges.
Also if your opponent has a no fold button and will station you down, bet sizes don't matter to him does it? So if this were the case bluffing big is suicidal, value bet over jam becomes super profitable.
Think less about being balanced, and more about your opponent's range, and what your hand wants to do vs that range. Also consider your stack depth, and what it can reasonably accomplish. You can't bluff bigger if you don't have enough behind.
There are spots where your bluffs should be bigger than your value, and vice versa, depending on the range you're targeting to call or fold.
As a super-simplistic guide:
1. We think our opponent has a very strong range = bet huge for value, small with bluffs.
2. We think our opponent has a very weak range = bet small for value, huge with bluffs.
3. We think our opponent has a somewhat merged range with some thin value, and some SDV = we probably need to bluff bigger to fold out their thin value, or we can bluff smaller small to just fold out their SDV value, and we can bet for a medium size with our value, targeting their entire range.
4. We think our opponent has a polar range of very strong hands and very weak hands = we can bet huge with thick value, small with thin value, and medium with bluffs.
We should also consider our opponent's tendencies. We can vary our sizing based on how tight or loose our opponents are.
2. We think our opponent has a very weak range = bet small for value, huge with bluffs.
Why would we do that? If he has a very weak range, he should fold for smaller bluffs, and we risk way less when we are wrong.
If you’re great at hand reading and you can put villain on a specific hand or hand class with a high reliability then I like your logic OP
But I think your logic falls apart if you instead put them on a a wide range of hands. If they have a wide range of hands and they use MDF to defend a portion of their range that corresponds to your bet size, then it doesn’t really matter what size you pick for a bluff, your bluff will have 0EV regardless.
What you can do is exploit the equity jumps in their range. Suppose their range has 20% traps, 60% strong bluff catchers, and 20% trash.
Then you would want to pick a size that doesn’t correspond to the equity jumps. IE don’t bet 25p because then their MDF is 80% and they can just call the top 80% and fold their air. That’s too easy. Also don’t bet 400p because then their MDF is 20% and they just call their traps. But if you want to bluff for 300p and think they still only defend their traps and fold all their strong bluff catchers then this is a nice exploit because they need to be defending 25% of their range hit MDF but they’re only gonna be defending 20% so you gain EV corresponding to the gap.
Why would we do that? If he has a very weak range, he should fold for smaller bluffs, and we risk way less when we are wrong.
"Huge" being relative to our value bet sizing and how strong V's calling range may be.
It may actually be small compared to our bigger bet sizing in other situations.
You can exploitatively size up with bluffs and down with value at times against very weak players, but in theory you should be sizing bluffs and value the same way.
It also makes sense in practice to play your bluffs the same way you would play your value. That is most credible against reasonable hand readers.
It's likely a matter of what stakes you're playing. At the lower stakes the exploitative approach will work well. At higher stakes against more educated and experienced players you will generally want to aim for more balance.
someone paying attention to me could probably exploit me by seeing large bets as a possible bluff red flag.
?
This is so hard to do
Most players at low stakes are very price sensitive. They see their hand as not being worth that much to call and rarely consider anything else.
Some good players understand what you’re doing, but they sit there with a capped range. They know that you may be bluffing, but your weak hand may still be better than theirs, so they let you have it.
Think how few players you see get caught bluffing. I don’t think you should ever fold the river without giving serious thought to a bluff. Even if your story isn’t great, low stakes folks get out of the way of big bets.
If you choose your spots well, you won’t get caught often and you need to get caught sometimes or you’re leaving money on the table. Please don’t think I’m advocating bluffing all the time - that’s foolish. But you probably should do more of it than you’re doing now.
Honestly, most of my bluffing is on early streets. I pot the flop a lot and fold people more than half the time. Please don’t anyone attack me, because I know that nobody on here or in solver land thinks that’s a good idea. I lie a lot playing poker, but I tell y’all the truth. I don’t do this all the time and less multiway, but I like it.
You could explain to me all the problems with that approach, but it’s my art form and when it blows up I’m not out much. I don’t get to the river too often without betting for value, but occasionally my semi-bluff bricks and I realize villain couldn’t have much either and attack.
I think when you get past preflop play and general knowledge, the most important thing in poker is recognizing opportunity and acting on it.
Never forcing anything, but when you fall into the right situation you know and take advantage of it. Hand in hand with realizing the bad situations as well, and making the folds.
So, as I said before, keep doing what you’re doing. Sounds like your sizings make sense. It’s your own creative power, your art.
