Playing "honest" poker - how far will it get you?

Let's say you play a solid ABC TAgg 18/9 game, starting at $10NL. You decide that you will play as straight a game as possible - no bluffs at all (semi-bluffs acceptable when conditions are absolutely right), and you will fold every time someone reps a better hand than you have, and every time you are getting bad pot odds (with a small allowance for implied odds when definitely applicable).

At which stakes will this stop to be profitable, and under what conditions? For the sake of argument, let's say you will never play the same opponent twice so they will only know you through the particular table at which you meet.

I'm not sure you can hit 9 without bluffing.

farther then you think

Heh - 18/9 are my stats so I was envisaging myself trying it out, basically.

A few months ago I was chatting with Ultimate George about poker and that inspired me to try harder, play better, etc, just so I wouldn't have to tell a better player that I was a complete donk :) I basically played "honest" poker in terms of believing people's bets (and folding my bluffs/marginal hands as soon as I was played back at) and I had a really good run while I played like this. So I thought I'd see what people thouht about extending the concept - I am currently playing £25/$50NL ring (actually I haven't played ring for 4 weeks but am about to restart) and I am always looking for ways to improve my discipline, and I reckon that this kind of play at $50NL would definitely be a winning strategy.

Despite what you will hear about me being a nit, if I 'believed' peoples' bets/raises, I'd have a lot more money to my name.

Like, a LOT more money to my name...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by biondino

I basically played "honest" poker in terms of believing people's bets (and folding my bluffs/marginal hands as soon as I was played back at) and I had a really good run while I played like this.

---

That's basically how I play. I usually give my opponents credit until things don't start to add up. I'm sure I get bluffed off some hands but it keeps me out of trouble. But being honest about your own holdings all the time and playing them accordingly has got to be -EV.

Been playing $50NL and am 14/5. Pretty much bet my monsters and don't bluff much at all unless villain makes it painfully obvious he is weak and scared. I have maintained a 7.5PTBB/100 winrate for 15k hands and I think it can be much better (ran into a 5k hand stretch of suckouts and donk moves due to tilt). So, to answer your question...yes, this style of play is good and very profitable for $50nl and probably even $100NL. I've been watching $100NL and see many of the same players there and the same type of play so I think I can hit 5-6BB/100 there playing this way also. Beyond that, I'm pretty sure you will run into too many aware players who won't pay you off...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by djzcko

Been playing $50NL and am 14/5...

---

Raise more.

It depends what u mean by str8 up poker.

Im sure my def of playing str8 up would seem maniacal to others. You can have success up to nl 400 (as i high as i play on a regular basis) by playing solid poker, but a tight/passive player wont get far.

IMO, Biondino, what you've described is basically perfect poker strategy up to NL100. People mostly just play their cards at the lower limits. When they bet a lot, they like their cards a lot. On top of that, no one notices anything, so there's no point in making moves for "image," or whatever.

At the lower stakes, the bulk of the money trades hands from people overvaluing top and sometimes middle and low pairs. Period. Since, you have very little FE at these levels when people have any kind of hand, the best game is an honest game.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by samsonite2100

IMO, Biondino, what you've described is basically perfect poker strategy up to NL100. People mostly just play their cards at the lower limits. When they bet a lot, they like their cards a lot. On top of that, no one notices anything, so there's no point in making moves for "image," or whatever.

At the lower stakes, the bulk of the money trades hands from people overvaluing top and sometimes middle and low pairs. Period. Since, you have very little FE at these levels when people have any kind of hand, the best game is an honest game.

---

dan harrington is the bets example you dont need to be 'fancy' to be a big winner.
Gus hansen i guess is the opposite side of the idea.

Dont we have good high stakes players on FTR who are basically weak/tight and just put players in difficult sitauations?

I dont think a lot of top players move too far from this basic strategy at all, the just get more aggressive.

You have just decribed me to a T.
I play straight up poker and rarely bluff. I do make money at $100NL but not as much as I could because I am very readable. If I bet, the regulars know I have something. And they know that my “something” is usually better than what they currently hold, because I am tight with betting. So I can’t make much off the regulars that I see every night. The vast majority of my money comes from the pop-ins (the transient players). It’s a winning strat but it can be improved if one can figure out how/where/when to bluff. I really need to work on that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by EricE

You have just decribed me to a T.
I play straight up poker and rarely bluff. I do make money at $100NL but not as much as I could because I am very readable. If I bet, the regulars know I have something. And they know that my “something” is usually better than what they currently hold, because I am tight with betting. So I can’t make much off the regulars that I see every night. The vast majority of my money comes from the pop-ins (the transient players). It’s a winning strat but it can be improved if one can figure out how/where/when to bluff. I really need to work on that.

---

there's probably more to it than bluffing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by thnwkd

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by EricE

You have just decribed me to a T.
I play straight up poker and rarely bluff. I do make money at $100NL but not as much as I could because I am very readable. If I bet, the regulars know I have something. And they know that my “something” is usually better than what they currently hold, because I am tight with betting. So I can’t make much off the regulars that I see every night. The vast majority of my money comes from the pop-ins (the transient players). It’s a winning strat but it can be improved if one can figure out how/where/when to bluff. I really need to work on that.

---

there's probably more to it than bluffing.

---

predictability.

Once you arent you have an advantage.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by biondino

Let's say you play a solid ABC TAgg 18/9 game, starting at $10NL. You decide that you will play as straight a game as possible - no bluffs at all (semi-bluffs acceptable when conditions are absolutely right), and you will fold every time someone reps a better hand than you have, and every time you are getting bad pot odds (with a small allowance for implied odds when definitely applicable).

At which stakes will this stop to be profitable, and under what conditions? For the sake of argument, let's say you will never play the same opponent twice so they will only know you through the particular table at which you meet.

---

With experience you learn to make a lot of different small profitable plays.You learn to ID profitable stealing/bluffing opportunities. This is not very stake dependant, these plays are profitable at any stakes. Whats important at mid stakes and higher is that you learn to understand when your opponents make these same plays so that you can play back at them.

if you play honest poker, you will be exploited by the dishonest poker players.

At the lower stakes, imho it's best to assume honesty unless someone gives you a reason to think otherwise.

Ofcourse it's never this simple. Someone pushing allin with a flush draw or 88 on a 247 flop might for them be 'good play'..

I think it's vital that you understand how other people reason about poker. It's always very educational for me to talk to some friends that are average poker players and see how they reason about things. It's often so very different from my own thinking. And the net is filled with those kinds of people so understanding them is crucial imo.

This week outside of 2 notable bluffs (they raise i call they raise i call them check on the river i push they fold) for maybe $20 profit, I'm up 12 buyins playing my cards and not even c-betting unless I hit top pair, 2 pair, set, or have at least 8 outs (OESD or K or A high flush draw).

Who knew?

I try to play tight straight-up poker against unknown players and known fishies, no need to piddle away money on plays when reaction and range of opponent is pretty much unkown. Basic TAG, even weaktight play.

However I'm willing to represent hands & put more pressure with air against nitty regulars who are capable of thinking "tptk may be no good" when they face second potsized barrel or "I just got sucked out" after facing huge turn raise on 3flush board. Preflop is tight as well in order to maintain respect, marginal and decent 1 pair hands have less value because nits either fold right away or go bonkers with great set-like hand.

Works quite well, on the site I play (Fortune) it's hard to book big loss at day when playing tilt-free A-game. $50NL tables.

I agree playing unpredictably will get you so many free cards in the long run it's sick. Think about it, if you have TPBK or middle pair on the flop, would you bet into a guy who checked in front of you and has been check-raising, smooth calling and c-betting the turn, or c-check raising the turn after smooth calling? Against this type of player, any smart player is thinking "I don't want to give him a free card, but I don't want to be check-raised, and I don't want to be smooth called and face a big bet infront of me or a possible check-raise on the turn if I make a turn c-bet."

When you show a willingness to check-raise, and re-raise on the flop, people are much less likely to bet into or raise you with marginal hands and it allows you to better evaluate how good your own hand is. This is also an excellent way to inhibit people's desire to c-bet into you without a decent made hand. This is how you create tough decisions for your opponents based on your aggressive play.

6-max or full ring?

You have to be a bit more loose in 6-max... You can get away with being a bit nittier in full ring...

Believe it or not, most of the strategy that is successful at the low limits will win money at higher limits as well.. There are donks in every tier of poker...

My advice is to not play so nitty all the time though... You have to learn how to loosen up when the game requires it, and tighten up respectively...

If your goal for poker is to win as much money as possible whenever you play, then you're going to have to adjust your playing style frequently based on your opponents... If you're not doing that, and you're just playing the exact same way all the time, you aren't winning the maximum.

A very TAGG style can be profitable at higher limits, but the greater the skill level of your opponents, the less predictable you're going to have to be... Against more aware opponents, they are going to notice how easily you fold, and how reluctant you are to gamble... And they will take advantage of that, big time.

Dont pick any one style, figure out the approach that wins the most money at the particular table you're playing at and go with it... If its not working out, make adjustments.

This has been a great post. By following it's advice, I have been cutting down on my bluffing and calling resulting in me being much more profitable.

Also by getting out of hands early and folding to raises it is saving me lots of money.

One thing that I have noticed is that after you have established yourself as a tight player at a table, selective use of bluffs works fantasitic!

Over the last few sessions I have made some great bluffs like this and won some nice pots because they are all thinking I must be holding a monster to bet in. One thing that I think helps is that I don't make huge bets for bluffs, just enough so people think I am trying to get them to pay more into the pot. Often I think when someone makes a huge bet for a bluff you get callers because they think what the hell I many win alot if match it.

Also, to help this strategy along, I will often show a good hand that everyone folds on when I have it. Just confirms that I don't bluff!

But, the only thing that I find that messes with this plan is if you start to bluff too much, then you are just another player.

:mrgreen:

It would start to become a problem at 400NL on Party I would estimate. Below that, winning with this style is a definite.

I've been playing a few hands lately after a long layoff and I'm down about £100 (3-4 buyins as I've been playing $25-£50NL). I'm playing fairly well, by and large, but most of my unnecessary losses have been with bluffs.

Now, what I noticed about my bluffs, by and large, is that they were mostly done with position, against single opponents, and represneting an obvious hand. So far so good. HOWEVER, I also realised that I was still getting called or raised a lot, and it's probably cost me more than half my recent losses. So, my new approach - ONLY BLUFF WHEN YOU SENSE WEAKNESS. Only bluff when your opponent's play gives you reason to think they have a poor hand. Is this crashingly obvious? Is this weak? Let me know your thoughts.

Never bluff will work pretty well too. And it's easy to implement.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Irisheyes

Never bluff will work pretty well too. And it's easy to implement.

---

never bluff when you wont ever play the cards you are represnting.

How can you reprsent a turned flush if you never call pfr's with sooted connectors of sooted cards?
table image!

I only bluff if I smell weakness now. Before I would try and outplay guys when I knew they had a somewhat decent hand like AK on a K66 flop and they threw out a good sized bet. No matter what they will still call you down and then say something later like "I was so afraid you had a 6!" This just shows it doesn't matter what you say when they have a hand they like. However if he's betting that flop weak then I take it down.

That's the only bluffing I feel is safe at low stakes. Just wait for them to practically hand it to you. Otherwise play your cards.

Wowww... This thread proves to me exactly what I keep having to remind myself, playing honest poker at the lower stakes will get you a lot farther than dishonest poker will. The guys at the 10NL tables will nearly 100% of the time call you down, unless facing a completely undesireable board.

I'm beginning to wonder about the c-bet at these levels too. A lot of the time the c-bet gets the job done, but often enough it get's picked off by a re-raise, or a flat call. The flat call is the worst, because it often suggests to me the guy's on a draw, and I'll fire another (larger) bullet, only to be hit with a re-raise. This is where I seem to lose the majority of my money, on c-bets, and simply not beleiving my opponents bets and raises when I have a fairly strong hand.

IMO at the low stakes tables, honest play will generate long term gains.

I used to play 'honest' poker, setfarming and generally playing scared. Now I have the confidence to target players who I know are weak, isolate them, and outplay them. Openraising any two in LP and c betting nitty blinds has helped improve my win rate to about 15pt/100 hands.

Another move I like is raising 2 limpers with suited connectors, totally missing a coordinated flop, them checking and me potting it. At $50 or equivalent £25 tight players like to protect their hands even if they don't quite have the balls to pot it. Them checking in this spot opens the door for a cbet which is nearly always successful as these types don't play back in such a situation without a hand. when they do, you know you're getting under their skin, and when this happens I usually reraise because a check raise on this flop from this type of player doesn't make sense.

I'm finding much to my satisfaction that $100 NL really is as easy to crush as the level below it, at least on the site i play on.

Bad players play predictably and need to be exploited. If you know how to play poker you know how playing 'dishonestly' will add to your game.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pantherhound

when this happens I usually reraise because a check raise on this flop from this type of player doesn't make sense.

---

This is a slick move, pantherhound.

Even the trashiest hands carry implied odds when the BB is this fond of being destacked, no?

------HAND 3------
Game #3065260094: Hold'em NL ($0.50/$1) - 2006/07/20 - 21:50:33 (UK)
Table "Steelton" Seat 1 is the button.
Seat 1: mickey792 ($121 in chips)
Seat 2: burty1 ($40.75 in chips)
Seat 3: jjjklp ($73.15 in chips)
Seat 4: alchem1st ($207.25 in chips)
Seat 5: Longy11 ($137.25 in chips)
Seat 6: Lilinium9 ($103.75 in chips)
Seat 7: LarsruneZ ($200.25 in chips)
Seat 8: Ks28avril ($11.50 in chips)
Seat 9: Smiffy44 ($102.75 in chips)
Seat 10: wadeking7 ($72.50 in chips)
burty1: posts small blind $0.50
jjjklp: posts big blind $1
----- HOLE CARDS -----
dealt to Smiffy44 [3s 7h]
alchem1st: folds
Longy11: folds
Lilinium9: folds
LarsruneZ: folds
Ks28avril: folds
Smiffy44: raises to $3
wadeking7: folds
mickey792: folds
burty1: folds
jjjklp: calls $2
----- FLOP ----- [6h 5s 4c]
jjjklp: checks
Smiffy44: bets $4
jjjklp: calls $4
----- TURN ----- [6h 5s 4c][Kh]
jjjklp: checks
Smiffy44: bets $10
jjjklp: calls $10
----- RIVER ----- [6h 5s 4c Kh][Ad]
jjjklp: checks
Smiffy44: bets $80
jjjklp: is all-in $56.15
Returned uncalled bets $23.85 to Smiffy44
----- SHOW DOWN -----
Smiffy44: shows [3s 7h] (A Straight, Seven high)
jjjklp: shows [Kd 2d] (A Pair of Kings, Ace high)
Smiffy44 collects $143.80 from Main pot
----- SUMMARY -----
Total pot $146.80 Main pot $143.80 Rake $3
Board [6h 5s 4c Kh Ad]
Seat 1: mickey792 (button) folded before Flop (didn't bet)
Seat 2: burty1 (small blind) folded before Flop (didn't bet)
Seat 3: jjjklp (big blind) showed [Kd 2d] and lost
Seat 4: alchem1st folded before Flop (didn't bet)
Seat 5: Longy11 folded before Flop (didn't bet)
Seat 6: Lilinium9 folded before Flop (didn't bet)
Seat 7: LarsruneZ folded before Flop (didn't bet)
Seat 8: Ks28avril folded before Flop (didn't bet)
Seat 9: Smiffy44 showed [3s 7h] and won ($143.80) with A Straight, Seven high
Seat 10: wadeking7 folded before Flop (didn't bet)

That's just nasty! Good hand though.

I try very hard to limit the amount of pure bluffing that I do for one reason more than anything else: I hate getting beaten and losing money on a table. Yes I will bully people if I have the nuts at that time, but unless I have the nuts (or close enough) I will play a straight up game. I can't remember my stats right now and my home PC is turned off, but I am running at about 17/8 on FR $10NL/$25NL (stars and Party), so maybe I should relax my starting hands a bit and raise more of them.

However... For the same reason that other people have said, peopel at these levels will call you with anything and may well have you beaten on the river when they set or get their draw, so I want/need to be sure that I am holding the nuts before I show down.

I'm still losing money in some games though...

Hey guys. I usually am in the limit area, but due to the Monster promotion, I am playing more NL. To add some input and use a limit analogy, what if you loosened up a little preflop, and then played honestly post flop? From your perspective, you are playing honestly, but you add unpredictability to your game because the range you are playing is wider.

For example, you do your normal raise from late position with 9,8s that you would do in a spot with say A,K. You flop a flush or straight draw and c-bet semi-bluff it after the other players check the flop. Both hands can play similarly at this point, but from their perspective, which do you have?

imo you raise with non premium hands for two reasons
1. hoping to flop a hidden monster or draw
2.to encourage people to call you down with marginal/2nd best holdings when you actually have a hand like AA/AK

Straight Honest Poker sounds good...but to win I dont believe you can win playing with that style.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by IHodge7

Straight Honest Poker sounds good...but to win I dont believe you can win the maximum amount playing with that style.

---

fyp

Honest poker will beat most games at most stakes, albeit at not a high winrate.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by biondino

...and you will fold every time someone reps a better hand than you have...

---

If you fold everytime someone represents a better hand, you aren't playing solid "honest" poker, you're just playing badly.

Mega Man + Dr. Light > Dr. Wiley

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by johnnyBuz

Mega Man + Dr. Light > Dr. Wiley

---

Curses! Foiled again! :)