Bluffing in 100NL vs. 200NL

Do you think that the players in 200NL are more capable of folding to a bluff rather than 100NL? I ask because I have 2 hand historys where I tried bluffing at both limits. 100NL got called, 200NL guy folded.

I believe if the hand historys were switch between limits, it would still have the same outcome. Like Hand 1 is from 100NL, if I made that same move on 200NL, I honestly believe any solid player at that limits would fold. I know I would have. Vice versa, If I tried Hand 2 at 100NL, I believe it would have been called.

Hand 1

PokerStars No-Limit Hold'em, $1.00 BB (6 handed) FTR converter on zerodivide.cx

CO ($5.50)
Button ($136.30)
SB ($109.90)
BB ($153.65)
IOS ($99)
MP ($33.55)

Preflop: IOS is UTG with 4, 5.
IOS calls $1, MP calls $1, 2 folds, SB raises to $4, 1 fold, IOS calls $3, MP calls $3.

Flop: ($13) T, 3, 9 (3 players)
SB bets $10, IOS calls $10, MP folds.

Turn: ($33) T (2 players)
SB bets $10, IOS raises to $40, SB calls $30.

River: ($113) 6 (2 players)
SB checks, IOS bets $45 (All-In), SB calls $45.

Final Pot: $203

Results in white below:
SB has Jd Jc (two pair, jacks and tens).
IOS has 4h 5h (one pair, tens).
Outcome: SB wins $203.

Hand 2

PokerStars No-Limit Hold'em, $2 BB (6 handed) FTR converter on zerodivide.cx

BB ($144.70)
UTG ($113.35)
MP ($129.55)
CO ($261)
IOS ($171.85)
SB ($147.05)

Preflop: IOS is Button with T, J.
1 fold, MP calls $2, 1 fold, IOS raises to $8, SB calls $7, BB calls $6, MP calls $6.

Flop: ($32) 9, 5, 9 (4 players)
SB checks, BB checks, MP checks, IOS bets $24, SB folds, BB folds, MP calls $24.

Turn: ($80) K (2 players)
MP bets $24, IOS calls $24.

River: ($128) K (2 players)
MP checks, IOS bets $65, MP folds.

Final Pot: $193

Results in white below:
IOS has Th Jh (two pair, kings and nines).
Outcome: IOS wins $193.

Comments on the hands -

Hand 1, as you can see I tried to represent a ten. This guy wasn't buying it. If I held JJ in his spot, I believe that I could have laid it down. Maybe it's because I didn't show any strength on the flop. Do you think he would have folded if I raised the flop, then made a huge turn bet?

Hand 2, This guy claims to have mucked aces. I believe him because after I advertised my bluff he quickly went on tilt. He started cursing, then he rebought and lost it in a few hands. I've been bluffed plenty of times, all I say is nice bet. I'll try and remember how they played that particular hand and try to catch them in the act next time.

What are your thoughts on bluffing? Particulary for 6max? I find it profitable to execute a well timed bluff. Do you consider c-betting a missed flop bluffing? Or do you consider it a bluff when you simply outplay them when you hold crap? I've honestly dropped a few buyins to bluffs, but in my opinion, it's worth it. Am I retarded? LOL. Maybe bluffing is too advanced for 100NL. I think at higher limits (600NL-2000NL) bluffing is essential. This is not something I know from experiece, but it's just a thought. Comments?

Someone share their insight with me!

Haven't played on either 100NL or 200NL yet so hard to share it. Currently trying to master 50NL.

What are your thoughts on bluffing? Particulary for 6max? I find it profitable to execute a well timed bluff. Do you consider c-betting a missed flop bluffing? Or do you consider it a bluff when you simply outplay them when you hold crap? I've honestly dropped a few buyins to bluffs, but in my opinion, it's worth it. Am I retarded? LOL. Maybe bluffing is too advanced for 100NL. I think at higher limits (600NL-2000NL) bluffing is essential. This is not something I know from experiece, but it's just a thought. Comments?

I'm not a 6 max player, so take this w/ a grain of salt--but I think, generally speaking, the higher you go, the more central of a role bluffing plays. Which is why when you watch two pros at the highest level go at it, it almost looks like two people who've never played before. It's all psychology, reads, and bluffing.

I think at lower levels, including 200NL, people mostly play their cards. Maybe there's a little level 2 thinking going on, but nothing too sophisticated. 80 percent of the time, if someone bets really strong, they have good cards.

Originally Posted by samsonite2100

What are your thoughts on bluffing? Particulary for 6max? I find it profitable to execute a well timed bluff. Do you consider c-betting a missed flop bluffing? Or do you consider it a bluff when you simply outplay them when you hold crap? I've honestly dropped a few buyins to bluffs, but in my opinion, it's worth it. Am I retarded? LOL. Maybe bluffing is too advanced for 100NL. I think at higher limits (600NL-2000NL) bluffing is essential. This is not something I know from experiece, but it's just a thought. Comments?

I'm not a 6 max player, so take this w/ a grain of salt--but I think, generally speaking, the higher you go, the more central of a role bluffing plays. Which is why when you watch two pros at the highest level go at it, it almost looks like two people who've never played before. It's all psychology, reads, and bluffing.

I think at lower levels, including 200NL, people mostly play their cards. Maybe there's a little level 2 thinking going on, but nothing too sophisticated. 80 percent of the time, if someone bets really strong, they have good cards.

The difference between bluffing at 100NL and 200NL is about $100. Bluffing types of players, now that is what should be discussed.

Originally Posted by bigred

The difference between bluffing at 100NL and 200NL is about $100. Bluffing types of players, now that is what should be discussed.

Word, you would need evidence that suggests that you can "bluff" more succedfully at 200 NL than 100NL. Do your two hands suggest microcasms of those entire limits? Although I agree 200 NL has more thinking players, I remember a pot at 200 NL where a guy thought I hit a set of fives and folded KK, but I only had 88. You can bluff guys at 100 NL too, just gotta pick the right ones....

I would be more inclined to bluff NL200 then NL100;I think some of the players at NL100 are still not capable of laying down the best hand.

Originally Posted by Triptan3s

Originally Posted by bigred

The difference between bluffing at 100NL and 200NL is about $100. Bluffing types of players, now that is what should be discussed.

Word, you would need evidence that suggests that you can "bluff" more succedfully at 200 NL than 100NL. Do your two hands suggest microcasms of those entire limits? Although I agree 200 NL has more thinking players, I remember a pot at 200 NL where a guy thought I hit a set of fives and folded KK, but I only had 88. You can bluff guys at 100 NL too, just gotta pick the right ones....

But that player could play 100NL as well. You want to bluff a type of player that will respect raises, etc. It's really no significance whether it's 100 or 1000NL. You will find idiots at all stakes.

That's what I said.

okay, lets have a look at the first hand.

u limp UTG and and flat call.
i'm putting you on a pocket pair.

I cont bet the flop and i get smooth called on a flop with draws. I'm thinking a set possibly would do this, and TP would definitely raise. Villain might also be on a draw.

Turn comes a blank. I fire again, expecting u to fold and hoping u'll call but WHAT!? you raise hard? what could u have... a set that's now a full house? wouldn't wanna drive me out like that. A ten? What were u doing on the flop? Hmmm... smells like a bluff

River comes a blank. I check, knowing if i bet you'll probably fold but if i check u might bluff and i can call it. you do bluff. i call it. GG

Hand two, villain just played it bad... should have surely check raised the flop and pumped it in on the turn. As played your PFR suggests AK but more probably KQ or KJ since villain is holding 2 aces. He's gotta believe u raised with something legitimate, and because he's holding aces, that something legitimate probably has a king in it. So on the river, his ass tightened up, and u took it away from him. He's probably telling himself off: DAMN i slow played aces again and it bit me in the ass AGAIN!

The 2nd hand if played at 100 NL might not get a fold cos people don't lay down AA. The 1st hand would be called by any thinking player cos i don't really have a reason to put it down.

Originally Posted by bigred

But that player could play 100NL as well. You want to bluff a type of player that will respect raises, etc. It's really no significance whether it's 100 or 1000NL. You will find idiots at all stakes.

You've just made my day. Thanks for everyone's replies, It has given me great insight. Do you guys try to pull bluffs? Or is it something that you doesn't even cross your mind. If you do, let see some hand histories! Explain your thought process throughout the hand.

I think you're a dangerously bad bluffer. An observant opponent would destack you rather quickly. You have to understand the concept of plausable scenerio. The reason JJ called you down in hand 1, is because it's implausable that a top pair of tens on that flop would allow cheap cards to drop with two hearts and two straight cards out. When a blank hits the turn, it becomes a +EV scenerio for a lot of players to dance with you here. Once you wait for the turn to get aggressive, their thought process is "My JJ is ahead enough times to play for stacks in this spot. I will make money by showing down, based on the way my opponent has played this hand". This is especially true when any kind of aggressive read exists on you. It becomes obvious sometimes to a good player that you're playing the board against them purposely, and most will not tolerate it as you move up limits.

You will profit more by playing hands strangely, and taking advantage of blanks to increase implied odds in certain spots. Make sure when you bluff, that not only are you pretty sure what your opponent has, but that it becomes undesirable for the opponent to call based on the number of likely hands that can beat them.

The more times you surprise an observant opponent, the more respect you'll get. The more negotiation for tearing down modest pots you will recieve. If you actually DID slowplay a 10 in the first hand, you would get more credit for strange overbets in the future, and make it very difficult for your opponent to put you on hands. This is why it's important to be unpredictable. NL holdem allows you the luxury of playing bad on certain streets in the name of mixing up reads (having a 10 in hand one and slowplaying the flop), if you feel implied odds will compensate for it in that particular hand on a winning showdown when safe cards drop down.

You see what I'm saying? He gave you too much credit for not slowplaying a flopped TP 10 in hand one not to call you down with JJ when the second 10 hit.

Good post, Rondavu. It's true--bluffing is all about storytelling. In fact, bluffing is storytelling. Good stories are coherent and have a plot where one event logically causes another. Bad stories don't make any sense--characters behave illogically, you can't follow the action, etc. Hand #1 is a bad story.

I understand what you guys are saying, I did state that I believe the reason why the guy called in Hand 1 was because I didn't show any strength on the flop. I played that hand horribly. Now that I think about it, I'm kind of embarassed I posted it.

Originally Posted by samsonite2100

Good post, Rondavu. It's true--bluffing is all about storytelling. In fact, bluffing is storytelling. Good stories are coherent and have a plot where one event logically causes another. Bad stories don't make any sense--characters behave illogically, you can't follow the action, etc. Hand #1 is a bad story.

Brilliantly stated. So you can imagine that when you're playing against observant opponents, you can benefit by telling a bad story on purpose sometimes, if giving them cheap cards has a strong potential to mute. This encourages them to pay the pot while behind, and causes them to play badly against you in later hands. Read poker is all about the running repore you build with the table.

IOS, you shouldn't be embarrassed. I think everyone has played a hand or two oblivious to the story. Just be aware of the other shoe, and stick your foot in it before making choices.

You may get slightly more respect for your raises at $200, BUT you'll also be up against better players who are, by the nature of their skills, more likely to identify bluffs and call you on them.

(says the £25NL fish)

I definately believe calling a bluff is harder than making one.

against some fish with an overpair, laying it down is harder than both combined. why don't u try some more bluffs and post here for critique?

Originally Posted by biondino

You may get slightly more respect for your raises at $200, BUT you'll also be up against better players who are, by the nature of their skills, more likely to identify bluffs and call you on them.

Right on

As a little test, I tried pulling some bluffs off at 1000NL. Currently I'm only bankrolled for 100NL, so a buyin at 1000NL represents a signicant portion of my brankroll. I don't need you guys telling me how stupid this is. But I was willing to deal with the consequences if I were to drop a buyin. That would mean grinding 50NL again. I just wanted to see if players were capable of laying down better hands to aggression. Anytime I make any sort of bluff (I don't care if the pot is 50 cents) I always show. It gets me more action in the future, I'm sure most of you knew that already.

I know these aren't the greatest bluffs. But when I did show them, they always said good bet, indicating they most likely had a better hand.

PokerStars No-Limit Hold'em, $10 BB (5 handed) FTR converter on zerodivide.cx

Button ($1000)
SB ($1048.75)
BB ($2111.40)
UTG ($985)
IOS ($2362)

Preflop: IOS is MP with K, J.
UTG raises to $35, IOS calls $35, 3 folds.

Flop: ($85) 2, 5, Q (2 players)
UTG bets $65, IOS raises to $265, UTG folds.

Final Pot: $415

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

PokerStars No-Limit Hold'em, $10 BB (5 handed) FTR converter on zerodivide.cx

SB ($1089.25)
BB ($942)
UTG ($2103.40)
MP ($2255.15)
IOS ($2211)

Preflop: IOS is Button with 2, 2.
1 fold, MP calls $10, IOS raises to $50, 2 folds, MP calls $40.

Flop: ($115) K, K, Q (2 players)
MP bets $70, IOS raises to $270, MP folds.

Final Pot: $455

Ouch, I see a tell. Everytime I bluff I always reraise $200 more. This is something I didn't realize. I guess if players caught on to that. I could raise the same when I held a monster, but this is something I definately need to address. Anyways, the only reason why I even doubled up was cause I advertised a few bluffs and got called down when I held my next premium hand. This reason alone is why I believe bluffing can be profitable in the long run, but only if you pick your spots and oppenents very carefully.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Notice my stack size in this hand, it's $700. Yes I bluffed off $300. But look at what my opponent decides to push with.

PokerStars No-Limit Hold'em, $10 BB (6 handed) FTR converter on zerodivide.cx

CO ($1319)
Button ($320)
SB ($2371)
BB ($1830.20)
UTG ($402)
IOS ($710)

Preflop: IOS is MP with Q, Q.
1 fold, IOS raises to $40, CO calls $40, 2 folds, BB calls $30.

Flop: ($125) 9, 4, 7 (3 players)
BB bets $110, IOS raises to $320, CO folds, BB raises to $530, IOS raises to $670, BB calls $140.

Turn: ($1465) K (2 players)

River: ($1465) J (2 players)

Final Pot: $1465

Results in white below:
BB has Qh 9h (one pair, nines).
IOS has Qs Qc (one pair, queens).
Outcome: IOS wins $1465.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Here's the hand that doubled me up. I know you can say, anyone who has quads is going to double up. But, try saying that when you see what he mucked. There's no way I would have gotten any action on the flop if my table image wasn't shitty.

PokerStars No-Limit Hold'em, $10 BB (5 handed) FTR converter on zerodivide.cx

UTG ($1196)
MP ($2757.85)
Button ($1935.20)
SB ($600)
IOS ($1310.50)

Preflop: IOS is BB with 2, 2.
2 folds, Button raises to $30, 1 fold, IOS calls $20.

Flop: ($65) A, J, 2 (2 players)
IOS checks, Button bets $70, IOS raises to $170, Button raises to $270, IOS raises to $500, Button calls $230.

Turn: ($1065) 2 (2 players)
IOS checks, Button bets $910, IOS calls $780.50 (All-In).

River: ($2755.50) 8 (2 players, 1 all-in)

Final Pot: $2755.50

Results in white below:
IOS has 2h 2c (four of a kind, twos).
Button has 6d 6s (two pair, sixes and twos).
Outcome: IOS wins $2626. Button wins $129.50.

Share your opinions.

You just doubled your bankroll. Now you can play $500NL hehehe

gg
what was the bluff you got called on?

Sorry to change the subject but you know what I think is really funny about those converters, they always put the Results in white below:


so you need to highlight the results to see it, when everyone fucking highlites it anyway. Why the big secret? Sure it looks cool and organized, but it is really just a worthless pain in the fucking ass.

Originally Posted by samsonite2100

Good post, Rondavu. It's true--bluffing is all about storytelling. In fact, bluffing is storytelling. Good stories are coherent and have a plot where one event logically causes another. Bad stories don't make any sense--characters behave illogically, you can't follow the action, etc. Hand #1 is a bad story.

Weak, confused players tend to call more often than not to "see what you have."

It seems in those 1000NL hands that you were coming into pots with the intention of bluffing. That isnt a good plan at any stakes. raising 22 in early position then making a huge reraise when alot of overcards came is strange to say the least.

I was on the button.

Youre right by George.
My mistake.

The question is: would you have posted any of these hands if you didn't have a good session at 1000nl and lost your whole stack?

If I were to lose a buyin @ 1000NL. My post would have been something like: What the fuck was I thinking? I just bluffed 1k down the drain. Check out these hand histories where I go all in on the river when the 4th spade hits. What was I thinking?

Anyways, I think you are missing the pointI was trying to make. I said I believe that bluffing can be profitable, if you pick your spots. The purpose of the hand histories was not intended to be for bragging rights. It was just an example of how players reacted during the hand because of my previous bluffs. Would it make you feel better if I deleted the them?

It's not completely the stakes that makes bluffing certain situations profitable, rather your ops.

However, nearly the whole table at 1000nl would have noticed you destroying your table image, giving you infinite action on your monster hands.

The 'Book of Bluffs' lays out 12 'Buffing Proverbs' that touch on key bluffing concepts. They really provide a solid, theorectical foundation for successful bluffing. It's a good read ....... I really recomment the book.

Proverb #8 says that a good bluff tells a story that the victim believes & understands. This is all too true!! The last thing you want to do is trigger someone's calling instincts by creating confusion, because that leads to curiousity which can very quickly bring about a call that you don't invite.

I agree with the wabbit, I think it's a mistake to directly equate the ability to pull off bluffs or not to the stakes you are playing. It's the players, not the stakes. It just so happens that as you move up in stakes there are more "solid" players that are bluffable/capable of laying down the best hand.

I routinely pick the right spots and right players to bluff in the $1/2 B&M NL game that I play in. And yet, I constantly hear other otherwise decent players talking about how 'there's no bluffing in this game'. How wrong they are. Ironically, these guys are some of the easier ones to bluff.

Table image is so, so important; I'm learning that more and more every time I play. If you are not running well, or your image says 'this guy's struggling', your bluffing success rate will go WAY down. If you have a massive stack that says 'I'm winning, and therefore I must be solid" to your opponents, bluffing is definitely easier to pull off (of course, that's not just your image at work, but your table image plays a larger psychological role than I had originally thought for sure)

I also find calling down bluffs to be harder than pulling them off. Finding inconsistencies between the action and the hand or hands being represented is one general bluff catching concept ..... anyone know of others that they care the share? Back when I was playing more limit, I seemed to be able to call down bluffs more often, but the implied threat of betting on later streets in NL, has made calling down bluffs a small to non-existent part of my game. Which on the whole is fine at the stakes I play since the other players aren't bluffing very often, and when they do it's as obvious as hell. I'm talking about more subtle situations, like holding 77 and calling down a KQo bluff on an Ace-high board. That's really hard to do in NL and would love to hear some sage advice from you master bluff catchers out there.