Mid/High Stakes Limit Hold'em Poker Forums

Hey jay what do you think of what I call the 'big street bluffing paradox,' which is that you are getting 5.5:2 to try a check/raise bluff, while your opponent is getting 8.5:1 to catch a bluff? (Even though it's not really a paradox at all, I just haven't thought of a better name for it.) But the question is, how do you use those two differing odds to figure out the optimal bluffing frequency?

another question, what do you think he will valuebet on the river overall and what do you think he could bet/fold?
if villain can b/f some of the time KJ and K9s there, i think its good, if not, its bad

I didnt want to make this too opponent specific, but he is a thin valuebetter and might find some tough folds. Worst hand he valuebets is prolly T9ish and I believe he can fold his Tx, K9 might be a little optimistic, but it is possible...

Hey jay what do you think of what I call the 'big street bluffing paradox,' which is that you are getting 5.5:2 to try a check/raise bluff, while your opponent is getting 8.5:1 to catch a bluff? (Even though it's not really a paradox at all, I just haven't thought of a better name for it.) But the question is, how do you use those two differing odds to figure out the optimal bluffing frequency?

I am getting 6.5:2 imo
Hmm, not sure if I am approaching this right, I guess we would have to bluff a little less than 30%ish then?

I can't wait to read a comment like "bad vs a bad player, good vs a good player, bad vs a very good player"
On a serious note: I don't like it against the vast majority of the 10/20 population including myself.

I love this post and agree with the quote you included in it.

Hey jay what do you think of what I call the 'big street bluffing paradox,' which is that you are getting 5.5:2 to try a check/raise bluff, while your opponent is getting 8.5:1 to catch a bluff? (Even though it's not really a paradox at all, I just haven't thought of a better name for it.) But the question is, how do you use those two differing odds to figure out the optimal bluffing frequency?

if he folds more than once in 8.5 times, bluff 100%.

if he folds more than once in 8.5 times, bluff 100%.

Would you please elaborate?

Shouldn't we be looking at it from our perspective? I thought that if we are getting 6.5:2 on a bluff, we should be bluffing if he folds more than once in 4.25 times (3.25:1). Is that not correct?

Would you please elaborate?

Shouldn't we be looking at it from our perspective? I thought that if we are getting 6.5:2 on a bluff, we should be bluffing if he folds more than once in 4.25 times (3.25:1). Is that not correct?

yeah this is correct. I'm an idiot

anybody else bet/fold the flop?

First we have to fold our weak suited aces and unsuited aces and a few suited connectors (98s, 87s).. Perhaps the problem with folding all our small pairs on the flop is that we will not have much left to fold on the turn if he bets again + it will be highly profitable to resteal against us with weak draws on flop. Maybe we should call flop with half of our low pairs, those who got a backdoorflushdraw and then we can fold these if we dont pick up a draw on turn?

If we call this flop because he often raises with a little bit of everything and then check behind on turn, I think we should treat our pair as a bluffcatcher on river.

Also, before we checkraisebluff this river we need to figure out what we are donking on river. I would prefer donking a lot since we will have a hand a lot, he is forced to call a lot because of potodds.

First we have to fold our weak suited aces and unsuited aces and a few suited connectors (98s, 87s)..

Maybe I'm missing something fundamental here... why is folding an ace preferred to folding a weak pocket pair here?

That's my basic idea of when to have a turn donk range: when the turn hits my range much more than his.

Super solid thinking IMO.

But the question is, how do you use those two differing odds to figure out the optimal bluffing frequency?

Care to elaborate on this?

Maybe I'm missing something fundamental here... why is folding an ace preferred to folding a weak pocket pair here?

I guess because we are dominated more often and because we have less implied odds. When the ace hits he will check behind more often than when say the 7 hits on the turn. Also he can easily have QJ which crushes our Ax if we are not planning to call turn UI.

I guess because we are dominated more often and because we have less implied odds. When the ace hits he will check behind more often than when say the 7 hits on the turn. Also he can easily have QJ which crushes our Ax if we are not planning to call turn UI.

There aren't that many hands that villain raises for value that has Ax dominated... although if he raises his A-high draws and AT then that's a real issue. 77 without a spade can prove costly here, too, depending on how villain plays KK and TT preflop and flop. But yeah, the QJ draw might tip the scales on this board, at least without the A ... although if not planning to showdown UI, there's not much value in calling the raise (without the specific read).

dont we have better equity with Ax there as with some PPs?

You can play around with villains ranges to make either Ax or a 77 to have more equity.