https://www.liquidpoker.net/


LP international Poland latinoamerica Iceland    Contact            Users: 209 Active, 4 Logged in - Time: 02:03

The Singularity of Bluffing - Page 2

New to LiquidPoker? Register here for free!
Forum Index > Articles Experienced
  First 
  < 
  1 
 2 
  3 
  > 
  Last 
  All 
newbie.cjb   United States. Nov 02 2007 21:06. Posts 3096

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

my lose is a win. my wins are nothing. 

JonnyCosMo   United States. Nov 02 2007 21:55. Posts 7292


  On November 02 2007 19:49 lachlan_fearn wrote:
Show nested quote +


who is jman never heard of him


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

Everyone needs to see that you are king of the castle - PoorUser 

JonnyCosMo   United States. Nov 02 2007 21:56. Posts 7292

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

Everyone needs to see that you are king of the castle - PoorUser 

ggplz   Sweden. Nov 02 2007 22:49. Posts 16640


  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

if poker is dangerous to them i would rank sports betting as a Kodiak grizzly bear who smells blood after you just threw a javelin into his cub - RaiNKhAN 

sawseech   Canada. Nov 03 2007 00:19. Posts 3182

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

lets go fucking mental la la la la lets go fucking mental lets go fucking mental lala la la 

thundza   United States. Nov 03 2007 00:19. Posts 2001


  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.

pausing stinger video to google ninja porn - myth 

MiPwnYa    Brasil. Nov 03 2007 02:48. Posts 5227

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

 Last edit: 03/11/2007 02:49

Floofy   Canada. Nov 03 2007 04:06. Posts 8691

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

james9994: make note dont play against floofy, ;( 

Floofy   Canada. Nov 03 2007 04:21. Posts 8691

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

james9994: make note dont play against floofy, ;( 

bigredhoss   Cook Islands. Nov 03 2007 05:02. Posts 8633

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

Truck-Crash LifeLast edit: 03/11/2007 05:02

iamalex   United States. Nov 03 2007 06:27. Posts 1556

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.


morph1   Sierra Leone. Nov 03 2007 07:23. Posts 2352

nice read man.. gj

Always Look On The Bright Side of Life 

RaiZ   France. Nov 03 2007 09:11. Posts 1503

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

Shin-il : Yeah it was very very very good for me too. Rekrul : YOU MOTHER FUCKING FUCKING SON OF A BITCH 

SpasticInk   Sweden. Nov 03 2007 10:42. Posts 6288

nah I don't tthink they are the same person


n0rthf4ce    United States. Nov 03 2007 12:42. Posts 8119

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.

www.cardrunners.com 

bigredhoss   Cook Islands. Nov 03 2007 15:31. Posts 8633


  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

Truck-Crash Life 

Sheitan   Canada. Nov 03 2007 20:57. Posts 4217

Very interesting read, thank you sir.

Odds are exactly 50%, either happens or it doesnt  

SPEWTARD   Peru. Nov 04 2007 11:59. Posts 4303


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


i do :$

Rise and Shine 

MARSHALL28   United States. Nov 04 2007 16:27. Posts 1897


  On November 02 2007 21:49 ggplz wrote:
Show nested quote +




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?


MARSHALL28   United States. Nov 04 2007 16:30. Posts 1897

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!!!


 
  First 
  < 
  1 
 2 
  3 
  > 
  Last 
  All 



Copyright © 2019. LiquidPoker.net All Rights Reserved
Contact Advertise Sitemap