Trying to bluff more - was this too risky?

[Borax]

I just read "The book of bluffs" by Matt Lessinger and am trying to bluffa bit more. It feels truly great when it works like the hand below. But the question is: Was it a good bluff or too risky and why?

NL $20+$2 SnG

UTG+1 $1,500 in chips
UTG+2 $1,500 in chips
MP1 $1,255 in chips
Hero $1,560 in chips
MP3 $1,460 in chips
CO $1,420 in chips
Button $1,590 in chips
SB $1,175 in chips
BB $2,040 in chips
UTG $1,500 in chips

BLINDS
SB posts $10
BB posts $20

PRE-FLOP
UTG folds
UTG+1 calls $20
UTG+2 folds
MP1 folds
Hero calls $20
MP3 folds
CO calls $20
Button folds
SB folds
BB checks

FLOP (pot 90)

BB checks
UTG+1 checks
Hero bets $90
CO calls $90
BB calls $90
UTG+1 folds

TURN (pot 360)

BB checks
Hero bets $200
CO folds
BB folds

SHOWDOWN
Hero wins $560 did not show cards
-------------------------------------

[andy-akb]

With blinds so small and 3 people in the pot, I dont like it. You had to build the pot just to make it worth the bluff. This bet costs you a lot of chips when it doesnt work, you are betting the pot on the flop and then a little more than half on the turn. Seems risky to me, especially when both limpers call on the flop.

[zarry]

I agree there is too many people in the pot and the blinds are really kinda low... granted your bet may have forced out Ax low kicker but it also depends with the quality of players your with. But the fact is it worked I just would recommend a little more selective aggression, because I am a big advocate of the bluff, It plays a huge roll in how I play the sng's but that was very risky

[andy-akb]

I agree there is too many people in the pot and the blinds are really kinda low... granted your bet may have forced out Ax low kicker but it also depends with the quality of players your with. But the fact is it worked I just would recommend a little more selective aggression, because I am a big advocate of the bluff, It plays a huge roll in how I play the sng's but that was very risky

I cant imagine Ax is folding there, no matter the kicker. With 2 aces on the board, if you are holding one you dont care much about the kicker.

[thnwkd]

Why do you want to bluff more? Its overated and should only be done in certain situations this not being one of them. you're just chip spewing here i think.
Most times when you win its not because you outplayed your opponents but that they played poorly; nice post here

[Borax]

Why do you want to bluff more? Its overated and should only be done in certain situations this not being one of them. you're just chip spewing here i think.
Most times when you win its not because you outplayed your opponents but that they played poorly; nice post here

Bluffing is an important part of poker if I want to improve. To be good at it I need to practice
About timing, my image was very tight and I had a good feeling the bluff would work, but it was only a feeling... I see from the comments that this bluff was too risky. Thank you for letting me know what you think.

Another question. I limp into a 300 pot for 50 from the button with
and flop comes
Checked to CO who overbets the pot with 450 leaving him with a stack of 700.
I have 2000 left and from my read I put him on Qx with a weak kicker, maybe Q7-QT (suited or not).
I'm pretty sure he wouldn't bet it that hard with better than a pair of Q's and there is a small chance he is also bluffing.
Do I just fold or do I raise him all in

[zarry]

Seems you say with 50 from the button that the blinds are still 25/50 which means you have time, the situation depends on whether you want to try and elimate the player leaving you with many more chips and one less contentender or be happy with 2k atm... Its a push or a fold no way you call this just flat... your lookin if he doesnt hold aa or aq 12 outs around 48% possibly running strait cards if your on jokerstars... hm for me this is an sng ill take this chance and push here but thats just how i play the sng turbos... hoped that helped

[Borax]

Seems you say with 50 from the button that the blinds are still 25/50 which means you have time, the situation depends on whether you want to try and elimate the player leaving you with many more chips and one less contentender or be happy with 2k atm... Its a push or a fold no way you call this just flat... your lookin if he doesnt hold aa or aq 12 outs around 48% possibly running strait cards if your on jokerstars... hm for me this is an sng ill take this chance and push here but thats just how i play the sng turbos... hoped that helped

Thanks
Yes blinds are 25/50 and this is not a turbo SnG, so 2000 is an ok stack at this point. I would be down to 850 if I push and loose, so I wouldn't be out of the game although I wouldn't be too happy. If I win the hand I will be in a very good chip position whan the blind stealing get more aggressive. I am very sure he didn't limp a high pair or AQ with all the other limpers and his style. He might hold two pair, but I was pretty sure he had a Q. Anyway I need to improve or fold him with a push to win the hand.
I find it hard to not push here, and hope for lots of advice on this

[fasin8ing]

I bluff at the play money tables.. I really need to practice more.. That shit never works. I think it matters what your buy in is. You cant make everyone fold. Especially with 2 aces on that board. I pick a better spot next time.. some random shit flop like 6 2 10 or something. Let me rephrase- Great bluff if he doesnt have an ace. Terrible if your up against some Ace rag shit. Did that book tell you to practice? If so .. is he fricken sportin my buy in with a money back guarantee? I have been practicing not bluffing. Much more profitable IMO.

[Phantaroth]

If yer gonna bluff I think you are usually better off raising pre flop and then deciding what to do based on the flop.

[samsonite2100]

First of all, by the looks of it, you're playing lots of hands you shouldn't be playing. A8 limped from the button into a multiway pot is exactly the kind of hand you should be avoiding. What are you hoping for in that situation, to flop a flush? Even if you flop four to a flush, it puts you in exactly the situation you described, where you're making razor thin marginal decisions for a huge portion of your stack.

To try to answer your question, I think bluffing is overrated in poker generally and particularly in SNGs. SNGs are essentially about stack preservation and leverage. You would be doing your game a greater service if you spent more time working on the basics, like starting hand selection.

[Rondavu]

What are you guys up to in this thread? Are you son of a bitches trying to bluff me?

Bluffing is an important part of poker if I want to improve. To be good at it I need to practice

Bluff practice, in the abstract, is putting the cart before the horse. Here's the horse...

First practice putting people on hands. Figure out how much fold equity you have based on your opponents likely hand range, their overall ability to fold against an unknown, and their opinion of you as it effects the fold equity. What you're not seeing is that a whole universe of value and manipulation exists after learning the right things in the right order. There is no short cut. There is no bluff practice. There is only choices you make based on your read, your image, the villains image, how much fold equity the board is offering, and how much fold equity a villain is naturally offering on the calling station <------> tight wad spectrum.

You're sitting there with a book about bluffing, perhaps not realizing that it's only one side of the coin. The other side is value. Think about them as one cohesive learning curve. Think of them as the end to a means, and not the means to an end. What I'm saying is fold equity (bluffing) and value are the sum of an equation involving your assessment of a villains hand and your relationship with the villain. If you haven't started figuring out those things, then you're not ready to arrive at critical decisions such as bluffing at the right time, or betting the nuts appropriately.

[samsonite2100]

You're sitting there with a book about bluffing, perhaps not realizing that it's only one side of the coin. The other side is value. Think about them as one cohesive learning curve. Think of them as the end to a means, and not the means to an end. What I'm saying is fold equity (bluffing) and value are the sum of an equation involving your assessment of hands and table texture.

Yes.

And to take Rondavu's point even further, if you master the art of reading players and table texture (to the extent it can be mastered), bluffing becomes a type of value bet, and vice versa.

[Borax]

First of all, by the looks of it, you're playing lots of hands you shouldn't be playing. A8 limped from the button into a multiway pot is exactly the kind of hand you should be avoiding. What are you hoping for in that situation, to flop a flush? Even if you flop four to a flush, it puts you in exactly the situation you described, where you're making razor thin marginal decisions for a huge portion of your stack.

To try to answer your question, I think bluffing is overrated in poker generally and particularly in SNGs. SNGs are essentially about stack preservation and leverage. You would be doing your game a greater service if you spent more time working on the basics, like starting hand selection.

I disaggree on a few of your points. A8s should be used to target a multiway pot from LP. With few callers or from EP it's not a good idea to play it at all, but to see a cheap flop in a multiway big pot is how most litterature I have read advice to play a suited Ace from LP. My 54s limp was just to mix it up a bit. I usually play a very tight SnG game and need to mix in a bit of suited connectors etc. to avoid being too predictable. Usually I fold a hand like that from any position, trust me

I have so far read:
The theory of poker (Sklansky)
Harrington on hold'em I and II (Harrington)
Super system I and II (Brunson)
Small stakes hold'em (Sklansky)
Hold'em poker for advanced players (Sklansky)
Tournament poker (McEvoy)
Play poker like the pros (Hellmuth)
Little green book (Gordon)
Kill Phil (Rodman & Nelson)
Poker tells (Caro)
Making the final table (Lindgren)

...in that order before I read
The book of bluffs (Lessinger)

So I have picked up on the fact that poker is not about bluffing all the time. But, if you never bluff you will never be a really good poker player. You will be very predictable, that is simple logic. It is also a fact that many of your bluffs will be called along the way but it will still show a nice profit if used correctly. I also feel like I need to try out different styles a bit even if it cost me a SnG or two. Some of these authors gave the advice to try to play very tight, very aggressive etc. for a given period of time just to see how your opponents reacted to your play. I think that is good advice.

But do not misunderstand me. I am not defending my bluff with the 54s here. I hear the answers to my question and yes I think my pot size bet on the flop is too optimistic. But, I think that when the second A comes and now one has played back at me indicating an Ace, there is a good chance that they will fold when I represent the Ace with a medium size "value" bet (200 to a 360 pot). I played the same with KK in another hand posted on this forum and the fact is that very often there is no ace out there if there is no aggression on the flopped ace and another one comes along on the turn. Then i think it's ok to pick up the pot.

[Rondavu]

I have so far read:
The theory of poker (Sklansky)
Harrington on hold'em I and II (Harrington)
Super system I and II (Brunson)
Small stakes hold'em (Sklansky)
Hold'em poker for advanced players (Sklansky)
Tournament poker (McEvoy)
Play poker like the pros (Hellmuth)
Little green book (Gordon)
Kill Phil (Rodman & Nelson)
Poker tells (Caro)
Making the final table (Lindgren)

...in that order before I read
The book of bluffs (Lessinger)

Now forget all that and play poker
I'm only half kidding. Experience is 500x more valuable than anything you'll read.

[GatorJH]

I have so far read:
The theory of poker (Sklansky)
Harrington on hold'em I and II (Harrington)
Super system I and II (Brunson)
Small stakes hold'em (Sklansky)
Hold'em poker for advanced players (Sklansky)
Tournament poker (McEvoy)
Play poker like the pros (Hellmuth)
Little green book (Gordon)
Kill Phil (Rodman & Nelson)
Poker tells (Caro)
Making the final table (Lindgren)

...in that order before I read
The book of bluffs (Lessinger)

You limped in, got 2 callers to a pot sized bet on a flop that COMPLETELY missed you and that you don't even have draws on (other than backdoor straight and flush draws) and yet you STILL put out another bet on the turn when yet another scare card comes out. I just don't see ANY of the books listed above recommending a bluff (your bet on the turn) under those circumstances.

There is a right time and situation to bluff and I think I can speak for the general consensus in saying that wasn't it. In this case it worked, however if you continue to bluff at the wrong time you will most likely end up losing more chips than you win in the long run.

[Borax]

Borax wrote:
But do not misunderstand me. I am not defending my bluff with the 54s here. I hear the answers to my question and yes I think my pot size bet on the flop is too optimistic.

Just to repeat that I got that point. And yes I think the second scare card was reason enough to bet on the turn even if I shouldn't have bet the flop.
Not many people flat call with an ace on the flop. They usually raise.
And actually "The book of bluffs" among other things states the importance of not backing down on your bluff if you get called on the flop and also that a scare card on the turn is a good reason to bluff

[Borax]

Now forget all that and play poker
I'm only half kidding. Experience is 500x more valuable than anything you'll read.

Very true
That is why I need to practice, also on bluffing. I'm a bit confused that people are so negative to bluffs in general though. What's the point of a tight image if you can't use it to take down a pot or two with a trash hand?

[samsonite2100]

I think people are negative b/c bluffing, at least as you're defining it, is rarely a good move in SNGs. Besides the reasons stated above--stack preservation and leverage--another good reason not bluff in SNGs is that bluffing depends a lot on table and player reads, and you just don't have time to make those kinds of reads during a single table tournament. You have some good ideas about bluffing, but IMO, they're better suited to ring NLHE.

[drmcboy]

keep at it borax. the replies in this thread prove you'll find some spots where bluffs are good.

But read Rond's post again (it's good stuff). The key is, knowing when to bluff, not TRYING to find a spot to bluff. You want to be about to fold on a K86 board, and then you'll think, wait, why would he make THAT play with KQ/AK? F that, I raise.

[Borax]

keep at it borax. the replies in this thread prove you'll find some spots where bluffs are good.

But read Rond's post again (it's good stuff). The key is, knowing when to bluff, not TRYING to find a spot to bluff. You want to be about to fold on a K86 board, and then you'll think, wait, why would he make THAT play with KQ/AK? F that, I raise.

That makes sense, I'll remember that

About bluffing in SnGs vs. Ring games. That is a good point. But in the late stages of a SnG I think you have to be able to make a move with any hand if you smell weakness.

[Sprayed]

keep at it borax. the replies in this thread prove you'll find some spots where bluffs are good.

But read Rond's post again (it's good stuff). The key is, knowing when to bluff, not TRYING to find a spot to bluff. You want to be about to fold on a K86 board, and then you'll think, wait, why would he make THAT play with KQ/AK? F that, I raise.

That makes sense, I'll remember that

About bluffing in SnGs vs. Ring games. That is a good point. But in the late stages of a SnG I think you have to be able to make a move with any hand if you smell weakness.

Keep in mind that depending upon buy-in, your bluffs will fail the majority of the time because you will not encounter thinking players and most only play their cards. It's not to say you can't practice, but be aware of the level of players you're playing against.

Tight is right early in low buy-in SNGs, it will be said countless times. Late in the tourney when you are down to 6 or less, you may not have the opportunity to bluff because you won't have the stack to do it when blinds are high and everybody is pushing. I would agree with others that bluffing is more successful in NLHE ring and in MTTs.

Question for those that have read this book, what's your opinion?

[gabe]

i dont like bluffing when there are lots of people in the pot

[Rondavu]

i dont like bluffing when there are lots of people in the pot

Number of opponents holds less significance than most people think.

[gabe]

i dont like bluffing when there are lots of people in the pot

Number of opponents holds less significance than most people think.

uh?? yea its pretty significant

[Rondavu]

i dont like bluffing when there are lots of people in the pot

Number of opponents holds less significance than most people think.

uh?? yea its pretty significant

My choice to bluff is based on a lot of factors. Number of opponents is just one factor in that choice, and not always overly significant. You're 5 handed in a MTT at 100-200 blind level on top of 14K chips and the button. The flop comes AA2 rainbow and it checks around to you holding JQ in a 1200 pot. Do you take a stab?

[MAX]

I haven't read the book, but assume that it discusses the future advantages gained by demonstrating that you are capable of making plays without the goods. Unfortunately, when bluffing in SNGs, the game is too short, and your stack suffers too much, to realize much of the future advantages. This is not to say that you shouldn't bluff, but that you should not count future benefits as a factor when deciding if it is a good idea. You basically should bluff because a)situation and stack sizes dictate it (bubble play) or b)you read opp. as having a better hand but being unable to call your raise. Semi bluffing is a diff. discussion, but obviously whether or not a move is +EV should be the deciding factor.

[gabe]

i dont like bluffing when there are lots of people in the pot

Number of opponents holds less significance than most people think.

uh?? yea its pretty significant

My choice to bluff is based on a lot of factors. Number of opponents is just one factor in that choice, and not always overly significant. You're 5 handed in a MTT at 100-200 blind level on top of 14K chips and the button. The flop comes AA2 rainbow and it checks around to you holding JQ in a 1200 pot. Do you take a stab?

'do i take a stab' depends on lots of stuff not mentioned.

that doesn't really advance your point.

[Borax]

I haven't read the book, but assume that it discusses the future advantages gained by demonstrating that you are capable of making plays without the goods. Unfortunately, when bluffing in SNGs, the game is too short, and your stack suffers too much, to realize much of the future advantages. This is not to say that you shouldn't bluff, but that you should not count future benefits as a factor when deciding if it is a good idea. You basically should bluff because a)situation and stack sizes dictate it (bubble play) or b)you read opp. as having a better hand but being unable to call your raise. Semi bluffing is a diff. discussion, but obviously whether or not a move is +EV should be the deciding factor.

I recommend the book. It takes you through different kinds of bluffs with examples. It also shows many bluffs that didn't work and explains why it didn't work.

Future advantages is not so important since a bluff that works means that your opponents don't know that you were bluffing. The author for example says that you shouldn't be proud of a semibluff when you got called and hit your draw, because the bluff obviously failed.

[Rondavu]

i dont like bluffing when there are lots of people in the pot

Number of opponents holds less significance than most people think.

uh?? yea its pretty significant

My choice to bluff is based on a lot of factors. Number of opponents is just one factor in that choice, and not always overly significant. You're 5 handed in a MTT at 100-200 blind level on top of 14K chips and the button. The flop comes AA2 rainbow and it checks around to you holding JQ in a 1200 pot. Do you take a stab?

'do i take a stab' depends on lots of stuff not mentioned.

that doesn't really advance your point.

You bet 400 into the 1200 pot and it's +EV, since more than 1/3rd of the time you take it down right there. Is that fair to say? Even though you have 4 others in hand with you, your fold equity is relatively higher on this board.

To advance my point. I bluff here because the board gives me equity. Number of opponents is mute.

[Rondavu]

The author for example says that you shouldn't be proud of a semibluff when you got called and hit your draw, because the bluff obviously failed.

There's so much wrong with this authors statement. You've succeeded in disguising your draw, and increased your implied odds in the process.

[gabe]

i dont like bluffing when there are lots of people in the pot

Number of opponents holds less significance than most people think.

uh?? yea its pretty significant

My choice to bluff is based on a lot of factors. Number of opponents is just one factor in that choice, and not always overly significant. You're 5 handed in a MTT at 100-200 blind level on top of 14K chips and the button. The flop comes AA2 rainbow and it checks around to you holding JQ in a 1200 pot. Do you take a stab?

'do i take a stab' depends on lots of stuff not mentioned.

that doesn't really advance your point.

You bet 400 into the 1200 pot and it's +EV, since more than 1/3rd of the time you take it down right there. Is that fair to say? Even though you have 4 others in hand with you, your fold equity is relatively higher on this board.

To advance my point. I bluff here because the board gives me equity. Number of opponents is mute.

more opponents means there is a higher chance of someone checking the ace to you or theres a fish that will call with some pair, and you will win the pot less.

[gabe]

The author for example says that you shouldn't be proud of a semibluff when you got called and hit your draw, because the bluff obviously failed.

There's so much wrong with this authors statement. You've succeeded in disguising your draw, and increased your implied odds in the process.

agreed, i know mason malmuth wrote a little bit about how this author's advice and examples on semibluffing were really off and should be ignored

[Borax]

The author for example says that you shouldn't be proud of a semibluff when you got called and hit your draw, because the bluff obviously failed.

There's so much wrong with this authors statement. You've succeeded in disguising your draw, and increased your implied odds in the process.

If you push on a draw and get called you did no succeed in disguising your draw. A semibluff is only 100% successful if you get your opponent to fold. The draw is just your backup plan if a better hand keeps playing.
The whole point of a semi bluff is to try to fold your opponent but still have outs if he calls anyway.

[gabe]

i think you are off.

read what mason malmuth wrote about the book of bluffs and semibluffing here:

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/sh...fpart=all&vc=1

[Rondavu]

You bet 400 into the 1200 pot and it's +EV, since more than 1/3rd of the time you take it down right there. Is that fair to say? Even though you have 4 others in hand with you, your fold equity is relatively higher on this board.

To advance my point. I bluff here because the board gives me equity. Number of opponents is mute.

more opponents means there is a higher chance of someone checking the ace to you or theres a fish that will call with some pair, and you will win the pot less.

Fair enough. Do you lose the pot enough times after betting 1/3rd of it to justify not making the play in the future against 1-5 opponents? What I'm saying is in your opinion, when does the +equity of betting 1/3rd end in general? Isn't it much the same up to say 6 opponents? Even though there's a bigger chance of your attempt being scalped with 5 opponents vs 2, doesn't your equity (albeit smaller) remain positively intact? Just because you have a bigger chance of getting caught against 5 other opponents, is it yet a 66% chance?

[samsonite2100]

Number of opponents is mute.

moot

[Rondavu]

Number of opponents is mute.

moot

You are correct sir, even though "mute" makes a whole lot more sense in modern terms.

[samsonite2100]

Quote:
Number of opponents is mute.

moot


You are correct sir, even though "mute" makes a whole lot more sense in modern terms.

It would be fun to play a number of mute opponents. No bitching about suckouts, etc.

[Rondavu]

The author for example says that you shouldn't be proud of a semibluff when you got called and hit your draw, because the bluff obviously failed.

There's so much wrong with this authors statement. You've succeeded in disguising your draw, and increased your implied odds in the process.

If you push on a draw and get called you did no succeed in disguising your draw. A semibluff is only 100% successful if you get your opponent to fold. The draw is just your backup plan if a better hand keeps playing.
The whole point of a semi bluff is to try to fold your opponent but still have outs if he calls anyway.

The author states in the book that people "overuse" the semibluff. Specifically, they semibluff in a situation where they have minimal fold equity and counterfeit outs. I think this is true. I think Malmuth would agree. The author takes the thought too far however, encouraging his readers not to semi-bluff enough. This is dangerous advice, especially against passive opponents. There are many situations I elect against a semi-bluff. One would be against the habitual check raiser. Another would be against several calling stations that are already laying me a fair shake of implied odds while seldom giving me immediate fold equity.

[Borax]

i think you are off.

read what mason malmuth wrote about the book of bluffs and semibluffing here:

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/sh...fpart=all&vc=1

Well, I still stick to the basic thought that if I decide to bet hard with a draw I will be happy to see my opponent fold his better hand instead of too often getting into a situation where I need to hit a few outs to win or to stay in the tournament. I read what the Malmuth guy thinks about the book, but I aggree with many of the answers to his post in the thread.

and by the way, here is the quote from the book as Malmuth quoted it:
-----------
Semi-bluffing, or bluffing with outs, is a recognized and accepted strategy. However, I feel that people overuse the concept and try to bluff at pots they have no chance of stealing. Their only hope is to hit their draw, but they use the pretense of semi-bluffing to explain why they got so aggressive with their drawing hands.

Strictly speaking, your purpose is to get your opponent to fold. If you have outs to make the best hand in case you get called, they are simply your backup plan. It's a perfectly good idea to have backup in case your bluff fails. Your main objective is to win, so any outs that increase your chances of winning are a big plus.

However, our goal here is to get your bluffs to succeed. And if they don't, then we should focus on what caused them to fail. Focusing on the outs you might have if your bluff fails is not central to our goal. For that reason, this book won't explicitly discuss semi-bluffing any further.
(Matt Lessinger: The book of bluffs)
--------

[gabe]

did you read mason's response to the quote? theres lots of stuff wrong with that excerpt.

[zenbitz]

i dont like bluffing when there are lots of people in the pot

Number of opponents holds less significance than most people think.

uh?? yea its pretty significant

My choice to bluff is based on a lot of factors. Number of opponents is just one factor in that choice, and not always overly significant. You're 5 handed in a MTT at 100-200 blind level on top of 14K chips and the button. The flop comes AA2 rainbow and it checks around to you holding JQ in a 1200 pot. Do you take a stab?

'do i take a stab' depends on lots of stuff not mentioned.

that doesn't really advance your point.

You bet 400 into the 1200 pot and it's +EV, since more than 1/3rd of the time you take it down right there. Is that fair to say? Even though you have 4 others in hand with you, your fold equity is relatively higher on this board.

To advance my point. I bluff here because the board gives me equity. Number of opponents is mute.

I don't really like to bluff into 5 people either, unless I have the tabled cowed.
What you mean to say is that IF more than 1/3 of the time you get 4 folds, THEN betting 400 into 1200 is +EV.

But if bluffing 1/3rd pot into 4 people is +EV, then bluffing into 3 is even MORE EV, and bluffing into 2 or 1 a gimme. Because the net EV = Fold% - 33% X pot size (modulo the odds of you still winning if you are called), so the higher the fold % the greater the EV. At 33% exactly - it's EV neutral.

I don't think it's quite linear though. (4 opponents are not twice as hard to bluff as 3), also you might have to bet more vs. a single opponent (who is likely to call bs on a measly 1/3rd pot bet). That's a small effect though.

So, I think this move is OK as long as you can absorb the variance of getting called/pushed over (i.e., you have a big stack)

[givememyleg]

Did that book tell you to practice? If so .. is he fricken sportin my buy in with a money back guarantee? I have been practicing not bluffing. Much more profitable IMO.

^^^ Agree.

[Borax]

did you read mason's response to the quote? theres lots of stuff wrong with that excerpt.

I read the thread and some people aggree with him while some don't.
I think he puts to much thought into one little part of the book that actually states that the author is not going to focu on semibluffing.

I liked the book. I think it's possible to learn something about bluffing from it and therefore I recommend reading it. Many players bluff too much and many players bluff to seldom. Both groups of players would benefit from reading this book.

Read it and then comment again. It costs only 10.74$ on amazon.com just now and that is not a bluff.

[midas06]

Some would say that since it's so cheap, the book must be nothing more than a paperweight.

Others still say that most poker books aren't very good at all, and that the best way to get better is through experience, especially with something which requires feel, such as bluffing.

[Borax]

Some would say that since it's so cheap, the book must be nothing more than a paperweight.

Others still say that most poker books aren't very good at all, and that the best way to get better is through experience, especially with something which requires feel, such as bluffing.

As a scientist and chessplayer I am used to approaching a new challenge by reading up on the subject to have a platform to develop from instead of wasting time doing all the mistakes people have done before me. I am pretty sure that several of the poker books I have read (and reading on this forum) have saved me some money. I also believe that experience is the best way to improve, but it doesn't hurt to implement a few tools suggested by others on your way to perfection.

[Rondavu]

Some would say that since it's so cheap, the book must be nothing more than a paperweight.

Others still say that most poker books aren't very good at all, and that the best way to get better is through experience, especially with something which requires feel, such as bluffing.

As a scientist and chessplayer I am used to approaching a new challenge by reading up on the subject to have a platform to develop from instead of wasting time doing all the mistakes people have done before me. I am pretty sure that several of the poker books I have read (and reading on this forum) have saved me some money. I also believe that experience is the best way to improve, but it doesn't hurt to implement a few tools suggested by others on your way to perfection.

I wish you luck in improving your bluffing abilities

[Borax]

Thank you
I like poker better and better and the aspect of playing the players, not your cards, is what I find most facinating about the game. And I need to play lots of poker to get better at that.

[fasin8ing]

As long as were on the topic... Whats the difference between a semi bluff.. And betting when you have nothing to control what the pot is offering for odds if your on a draw. If you miss your draw ... Are you going to continue to bluff at the pot? I do this sometimes.. Then when I get to the river and I have missed.. I check he checks.. I show down shit cards.. I am really not liking this play recently. Reason being.. I have learned to stay tight through the first 3 levels.. I show down good cards if there is a showdown. And then I may be out of postion on a draw and check it on the river.. And I have to showdown some shit cards. This ruins my 1st three levels of tight play IMO. My image is that I bluff and Iam showing down shit cards... This is truly the fact if Iam on a flush draw and I low pair the flop with a four flush. Ideas?????????????????????????? Lately I have been playing less connectors than I normally would. Unfortunately at the 5's people bet 500 into a 300 pot and that my friends isnt worth anyones time to draw. Every now and then you may get the right odds to draw ..... However; I am doing a ton better playing suited high cards and playing them out with or without a flush. At least I may run into TPTK or two pair...