The Singularity of Bluffing

jman vs pu....
i think jman will win

On November 02 2007 19:49 lachlan_fearn wrote: Show nested quote + On November 02 2007 19:40 MiPwnYa wrote: I think this article is in contradiction with Jman's article "GBucks". Pooruser treats each bluff as one specific spot that only happens once ("Singularity of bluffing") whereas Jman thinks more in terms of hand ranges / % of time you show up with a bluff / % of time you show up with the winning hand in an usual spot that may happen several times. who is jman never heard of him

He's the nit who has played 3 hands out of 4 episode in HSP.

Cliffnotes for artile:

1. Put your opponent on hand range
2. Summon up your inner sickness
3. Execute inner sickness upon your weak/tight opponent
4. ??????
5. Profit

On November 02 2007 20:56 JonnyCosMo wrote: Cliffnotes for artile: 1. Put your opponent on hand range 2. Summon up your inner sickness 3. ????? 4. Profit

the goal of bluffing is to cause your opponent to become indifferent to calling with hands that they otherwise would not, so as to improve the EV of your overall range in a specific spot

the actual success of a bluff is meaningless; it's important to gauge ranges with some accuracy but even more important to identify points of indifference so that you can estimate where his thresholds lie so that you can determine how often you need to bluff in order to strengthen the result of your overall range

basically bluff a station with very low (but nonzero) frequency and bluff nits all day and hover in between for the rest assuming that a player plays a reasonably strong range in any given circumstance

ideally the longterm results of your bluff would mirror the results of your entire range in any specific circumstance

On November 02 2007 19:40 MiPwnYa wrote: I think this article is in contradiction with Jman's article "GBucks". Pooruser treats each bluff as one specific spot that only happens once ("Singularity of bluffing" whereas Jman thinks more in terms of hand ranges / % of time you show up with a bluff / % of time you show up with the winning hand in an usual spot that may happen several times.

"Most bluffs are so singular and unique because of all the factors it’s hard to imagine a long term EV of any serious bluff."

This basic axiom means that you cannot put a percentage on bluffs, because each bluff is unique to the specific situation. So, when you say the articles are contradictory, you may mean that you don't accept this axiom (which is fine).

Jman, on the other hand, might think of long term EV for serious bluffs.

oh ; I'm no-one to say "I don't accept" the statement that each bluff is unique ; just pointed out that the 2 "theories" seemed to contradict each other. & I believe they do

i don't really agree with it
Lets take for example stone cold bluffs on the river against a player around your skill level (not someone you can read like a book).

as a general rule, a good player should expect to about break even with these bluff (i think) if he does it with optimal frequency (if he loose money with them he is bluffing too much, and if he win money with them, he isnt doing it enough
and they are generally pot sized bluffs.

so its safe to assume that only like 50% of these bluffs work.
but i dont think that means that these players make bad bluffs half the time.

if huge majority of your bluff are working, its either because you are hugely owning your opponement, or because you aren't bluffing enough imo

I also like the way twotimespot phrased this

i could be wrong thought cuz all this stuff is comming out of nowhere lol

or a much easier way to refute this is by taking for example the AQ hand PoorUser described

in this specific instance, vilian had a hand in his range that he calls with. but its possible that he folds enough of his range for the bluff to be profitable

and its possible that its impossible to tell which hand of that range he is currently holding

fwiw (and steve agreed with this) i think at least part of the reason there's some disparity in opinions is because he plays a pretty unorthodox style, which puts him into bluffing situations that are more "singular"/unique than most players get into, and thus game theory-type stuff has less significance to him than it might to a typical player.

nice article <3

I think it's a bit results oriented to say any bluff called was a bad bluff. It can still be good against the opponents range.

Otherwise, I liked the article.

nice read man.. gj

huuuuuh wait ? PU is fakesteve? no way it could be... oO
If yes then props to him.
All in all that was a very well written article !


Come to think of it i think i've read somewhere that he really was fakesteve... Maybe because i couldn't believe the mspaint's master could be good @ poker... My bad then

nah I don't tthink they are the same person

an interesting read that i don't particularly agree with. just because your bluff here failed against J10 doesnt mean its a bad bluff imo. if we have assessed this BAD player's range to be any clubs and any Jx, and assume he folds all clubs except Kx clubs and Jx 50% of the time, then its a good bluff because it generates profit in the long term. although I do agree with the statement that its impossible to measure the EV of a bluff--for example this MAY be a bad bluff if this player is tilted or high or is distracted by his girlfriend giving him a blowjob--if he has Jx over half the time and NEVER folds this river, then it IS a bad bluff, but not because we failed in our bluff, but because we incorrectly assessed his handrange AND his folding range.

we do have very different approaches to the game, different playing styles, and different philosophies. its only natural for me to disagree, and disagreement generates interesting discussions . nice read.

On November 03 2007 08:11 RaiZ wrote: huuuuuh wait ? PU is fakesteve? no way it could be... oO If yes then props to him. All in all that was a very well written article ! Come to think of it i think i've read somewhere that he really was fakesteve... Maybe because i couldn't believe the mspaint's master could be good @ poker... My bad then

they're not the same lol

Very interesting read, thank you sir.

On November 02 2007 14:39 lachlan_fearn wrote: i read it all, pity no one fold at NL10

i do :$

On November 02 2007 21:49 ggplz wrote: Show nested quote + On November 02 2007 20:56 JonnyCosMo wrote: Cliffnotes for artile: 1. Put your opponent on hand range 2. Summon up your inner sickness 3. ????? 4. Profit

i 100% agree w/ this, and everyone else that says this is in contradiction with g-bucks. i dont know pooruser very well, but i know his reputation, so the "3. ??????" i think is just his sick ability to read certain variables that most of us either don't give enough credit to or too much credit too.

i actually kinda think he contradicted himself when he says he tries to maximize his percentage expectation with every bet/check/fold/raise, then claims that the attempted bluff w/ AQss was a bad bluff since the opponent called the one time. It's definitely result-oriented, did you consider he probably folds JT a higher percentage of the time he calls?

there are other factors to include here that havent even been mentioned. we have just been discussing one particular hand (within a series of hands vs this opponent) ... but theres also a great amount of metagame gained by making this bluff, plus a psychological edge over your opponent the higher percentage of the time it does work and he folds.

just because you try to make a sick calldown and you are wrong, doesnt make the calldown that bad. ITS METAGAME!!!