[nl10] Bluffing scare cards

I posted this hand as blog post because I thought it was funny that my bluff ended up being a real thin value bet... but I was surprised that people thought this was a spew, so I'm moving it to strat because I thought this was a real standard play against weaktight players but I'm really curious what people's thoughts are.

Big stack is weaktight, shorter stack is unknown. Most players in FR nl10 play with their hands face up, so I assume that is true of him too. My thoughts on each street:

Pre: AQs, squeeze works, but I respected the early position raise.

Flop: Overs, BDFD, gutshot against a big stack who is verified fit or fold type. That I have equity here is a plus, but I'm inclined to float a lot here especially because this flop hits very little of anyones range, and I figure bigstack will let me if know he has an overpair on the turn.

Turn: I'm folding to a bet, but it checks to me. bigstack has a flush almost never, but might continue with an overpair. My plan was to chance it that shorty had a flush, and bet turn and river against bigstack because I'm sure he folds any nonflush to 2 streets of aggression. If shorty is trapping, he's trapping, but I think it's less than 50/50 that shorty has a flush, so assuming my read on the bigstacks range is right, betting is a +EV play.

I personally think this is a great spot to bluff weaktight players. And I find betting at orphaned multiway pots to be very profitable at such low stakes. Where am I going wrong? Or does anyone like my line/reasoning?

Submitted by : Sicks Macks

Full Tilt Poker Game #8214259087: Table Lonesome Cactus - $0.05/$0.10 - No Limit Hold'em - 23:02:54 ET - 2008/09/24
Seat 1: Hero ($10.20)
Seat 3: ludmilasmp ($2.15)
Seat 4: Djai79 ($10.40)
Seat 5: chuangxinly ($1.70)
Seat 6: I am a donk 247 ($11.40)
Seat 7: nim7997 ($2)
Seat 8: Vail99 ($4.15)
Seat 9: dodden13 ($1.45)
ludmilasmp posts the big blind of $0.10
The button is in seat #1

Holecards(Odds)
Dealt to Hero
ian235 sits down
ian235 adds $5
Djai79 has 15 seconds left to act
Djai79 raises to $0.40
chuangxinly has 15 seconds left to act
chuangxinly is sitting out
chuangxinly has timed out
chuangxinly folds
I am a donk 247 folds
chuangxinly has returned
nim7997 folds
Vail99 has 15 seconds left to act
Vail99 calls $0.40
dodden13 folds
Hero calls $0.40
ludmilasmp has 15 seconds left to act
ludmilasmp folds

Flop(Odds) (Pot : $1.30)

   
Djai79 has 15 seconds left to act
Djai79 bets $0.90
Vail99 has 15 seconds left to act
Vail99 calls $0.90
Hero calls $0.90

Turn(Odds) (Pot : $4.00)

   
Djai79 checks
Vail99 checks
Hero bets $3
Djai79 has 15 seconds left to act
Djai79 folds
Vail99 has 15 seconds left to act
Vail99 calls $2.85, and is all in
Hero shows
Vail99 shows
Uncalled bet of $0.15 returned to Hero

River (Pot : $9.85)

   
Hero shows Ace Queen high
Vail99 shows Ace Ten high
Hero wins the pot ($8.75) with Ace Queen high
Vail99 is sitting out

Summary
Total pot $9.70 | Rake $0.95
Board:  
Seat 1: Hero (button) showed and won ($8.75) with Ace Queen high
Seat 3: ludmilasmp (big blind) folded before the Flop
Seat 4: Djai79 folded on the Turn
Seat 5: chuangxinly didn't bet (folded)
Seat 6: I am a donk 247 didn't bet (folded)
Seat 7: nim7997 didn't bet (folded)
Seat 8: Vail99 showed and lost with Ace Ten high
Seat 9: dodden13 didn't bet (folded)

I think overthinking stuff like this is a great way to go broke at NL10. You should never be calling flop - you have AQ high multiway after a bet and a call. You basically just got incredibly, INCREDIBLY lucky this hand.

Just play solid. You don't need to start thinking and trying a bunch of fancy moves to have a great winrate at NL10.

there's a really great thread on this in the general poker section called "Floating!!!"

does seem like your read was pretty marginal though considering that the big stack who you expected to fold didn't fold when he had the kind of hand that you expected him to fold. i'm sure you coulld make your play here profitable but floating hu is a lot better than floating multiway for obvious reasons and i bet that their calling/raising range on a board like this is probably a lot wider than you might have suspected

I understand you can get paid with the nuts at nl10. But why not float weaktight players? Seriously? They cbet and then give up. This seems much better than nutpeddling to me.

Also: is floating fit-or-fold players really all that fancy? I thought that was pretty basic.

@failsafe

Big stack did fold, shorty called me. my read was that bigstack might stay in til river with an overpair. I think he was near the bottom of his range and just cbet to cbet.

vali99 is not a weaktight nutpeddler


He is a 40bb fish willing to get it in with any semblance of a piece of the board.


thus bluffing is bad

floating 3way in a protected pot (shortstack) ... hmmmmmm ... I don't get that. Btw 100 + 4 bb ain't 'bigstack'.

So consensus is, don't bluff shortstacks. Ever? this strikes me as pretty nitty., but I'll believe it.

on the turn, It's -EV exept when they minbet, it's almost always a weak bluff . On the flop it's read dependent...

Nobody thinks this bet gets two folds ~40% of the time? because that's all it needs.

ppl are idiots at 10nl

Dude, you tried to bluff. This means you intended for hands that beat you to fold. The result was that even hands that don't beat you were not folding. That makes this a horrible, horrible bluff. You can't have it both ways.

On September 25 2008 20:17 rgfdxm wrote: Dude, you tried to bluff. This means you intended for hands that beat you to fold. The result was that even hands that don't beat you were not folding. That makes this a horrible, horrible bluff. You can't have it both ways.

that's the most results-oriented thing I've ever heard. I'm perfectly open to the suggestion that this works less than 40% of the time and is bad, but because one guy who I didn't have reads on turns out to like burning money does not make this a horrible, horrible bluff.

By your logic I should say that causing the bigger stack to fold showed this bluff was pure genius because he almost certainly had more equity in the hand than I do.

But it's neither. I'm just asking if firing at a flush completing card in 3-way pots when checked to is profitable? Yes there are more flush combos out there, but I bet neither of them has a flush greater than 50% of the time, and my call/lead line screams flush. So how many non-set/non-flush hands continue or call down two streets? Mathematically it seems right to me. For the sake of discussion let's pretend the hand history ends right before my turn bet with a green "Hero ???"

It's not results-oriented at all. Results can still give you valuable information, especially if an opponent shows up with a hand that you didn't think was in his range. Your "read" was that the shorty didn't have a flush so he wouldn't call. The results proved this spectacularly wrong.

The point is that at low stakes, there are many short stacks who will call you down very very light, especially after they've put in a decent chunk of their stack like this guy did. That's pretty much what most of the posters in thread are trying to tell you. The hand you posted is obviously not conclusive either way but it supports our point rather than yours.

Your thought process is not totally off-base, no, but it's not a situation you should find yourself in very often and it definitely doesn't apply very well in your example hand. You can certainly float and take pots away from weak-tight players who give up after cbets, but you need a very specific read. You also need to have arrived at a flop having not been the aggressor preflop and it needs to be a flop that you feel is unlikely to have hit his range. These situations are not that common and the OP hand is strong evidence you are trying to overapply this thought process - use it too much and in the wrong places.

If the hand had been heads-up against the deep stack and you have a good read that he cbets and then c/f too often, this thread would have gone very differently. Your mistake here is the flop call, since the shorty's call usually means he isn't going away. Your turn bet is therefore basically equivalent to bluffing into a dry side pot, except that once in a while the shorty really will be retarded and fold.

I admit that I don't play FR so maybe such exploitation of weak-tights is much bigger in low stakes FR than it was for me in 6-max, but everything else I said above still stands.