Inducing a bluff with nut nothing.

[pocketfours]

Was dealt AhKh and my read was that villain had absolutely nothing. I was sure he had a good read om me also. Villain had played almost every hand.

I picked up the nut flush draw on the turn and my choices were:
1. semibluff
2. induce bluff

Normally I would semibluff here, but this time I chose to induce a bluff, because I was sure he would just fold to a reraise. Would you ever make that play here with nut nothing and with the semibluff as obvious choice?

The $50 turn bet was the weakest looking play I could make.

(Ongame) Texas Hold'em $10-$10 NL (real money)

Seat 2: SB ($2,526 in chips)
Seat 3: BB ($985 in chips)
Seat 8: Hero ($1167.50 in chips)
Seat 9: button ($2,006.50 in chips)

ANTES/BLINDS
SB posts blind ($5), BB posts blind ($10).

PRE-FLOP
Hero bets $40, button calls $40, SB folds, BB
folds.

FLOP [board cards 2H,7S,2S ]
Hero bets $40, button calls $40.

TURN [board cards 2H,7S,2S,3H ]
Hero bets $50, button bets $100, Hero calls $50.

RIVER [board cards 2H,7S,2S,3H,2C ]
Hero checks, button bets $250, Hero calls $250.

[Irisheyes]

I get the feeling that you are not experienced enough for this level. I think you should move down to Party poker 3/6 ASAP.

[gabe]

why not just check raise river

[pocketfours]

why not just check raise river

c/raise, are you sure that would be EV+ here?

Here he could only have a full house, quads or nothing, and I thought that he would instacall a c/raise with any FH. By moving in I could possibly have made him fold a 3, but nothing better than that (the game had been very loose). There was no way he would have called a c/raise with what I put him on (two overcards).

I was pretty sure he had a good read on me too, so I didn't want to bluff. And my plan was to induce a bluff, not to bluff myself...

[Galapogos]

Hey Sauce123, remember that thing Gabe said?

[Sprayed]

$40 preflop, $40 flop, $50 on turn/call min raise, smooth call river. Something doesn't look right here? Does Ongame accept US players? If so, I'm giving HS a shot.

[ilikeaces86]

WTF?!?!

[pocketfours]

$40 preflop, $40 flop, $50 on turn/call min raise, smooth call river. Something doesn't look right here? Does Ongame accept US players? If so, I'm giving HS a shot.

So you don't play HS and you think that something doesn't look "right"? Is it forum policy that a lot of people who don't play HS, write comments about HS play? I don't really see the point.

When two players battle it out with garbage all the way to showdown, you can't expect that the play looks "standard".

I think this hand shows the power of inducing bluffs and that it is possible to do in surprising situations. Villain clearly had no clue that I was trapping him (he thought that I thought I was weak, which I didn't, I just wanted him to think that I thought I was weak, because i knew he was most likely very weak) and he thought I would lay down my ace high for 250. He was wrong, because I was hoping he would throw out a smallish bet and I of course instacalled. Villain showed QdTs.

WTF?!?!

Hmm, what a friendly forum Care to elaborate?

[Sprayed]

$40 preflop, $40 flop, $50 on turn/call min raise, smooth call river. Something doesn't look right here? Does Ongame accept US players? If so, I'm giving HS a shot.

So you don't play HS and you think that something doesn't look "right"? Is it forum policy that a lot of people who don't play HS, write comments about HS play? I don't really see the point.

When two players battle it out with garbage all the way to showdown, you can't expect that the play looks "standard".

I think this hand shows the power of inducing bluffs and that it is possible to do in surprising situations. Villain clearly had no clue that I was trapping him (he thought that I thought I was weak, which I didn't, I just wanted him to think that I thought I was weak, because i knew he was most likely very weak) and he thought I would lay down my ace high for 250. He was wrong, because I was hoping he would throw out a smallish bet and I of course instacalled. Villain showed QdTs.

WTF?!?!

Hmm, what a friendly forum Care to elaborate?

I'm sure that the resident HS folks here can give better advise than me, but this hand doesn't look very good. I mean, you raised preflop to $40 and then followed it up with a flop bet of $40. That's really weak IMO. Not to mention villain played this hand awful as well. I probably would have reraised you on the flop. But no, instead villain chooses to min raise your $50 bet (notice you only bet $10 more than your preflop and flop bet). Your $50 turn bet and villain's min raise just stinks.

I think that you are saying that you were thinking that he had nothing, but why not raise this up on the flop to find out? Also, I think you are being results oriented because you won this hand.

[pocketfours]

I mean, you raised preflop to $40 and then followed it up with a flop bet of $40. That's really weak IMO.

It is weak of course, but it was meant to be weak (it was a trap). It doesn't matter because I know that it's weak and I know he thinks that it's weak (unless he knows that I know that he thinks that its weak and actually thinks it's strong, but I didn't give him credit for thinking that deep here). I was also sweetening the pot because I was convinced I had him beat. Making a weak play doesn't improve villains cards, but it can increase the profitability of an induced bluff.

Not to mention villain played this hand awful

I agree, but for different reasons. He probably put me on something like ATo, which was pretty close to the truth (and exactly what I wanted him to think I had). He just didn't see the trap, and can you blame him? The min raise is a bit strange, but perhaps he was setting up the river bluff. I guess he wanted it to look like a sweetener, but I didn't buy it. Perhaps he was trying to represent trips by giving two overcards correct odds to draw against made two pair.

He did make two mistakes, but you didn't mention them. His first mistake was to cold-call UTG raise with garbage (that's a standard "mistake" at this level though).

His main mistake was to represent two overs (his actual hand) by calling the flop, and then on the turn decide to be deceptive and go for a steal when a safe card came. This is a pretty classic mistake. A change of plan is more likely to work if a scare card comes. Here he was representing that the three helped him in some way, which didn't really make sense. The river card was even more safe for me, so I knew that if I was ahead on the flop, then I was ahead on the river as well.

I think that you are saying that you were thinking that he had nothing, but why not raise this up on the flop to find out? Also, I think you are being results oriented because you won this hand.

I got all the information I needed on the flop without making the pot too big. A bigger raise would have scared him away, or possibly he would have played back at me and I might have had to fold the best hand. Again if he would have raised on the flop, I probably would have moved in.

Also, I think you are being results oriented because you won this hand.

I might be a bit, but that's why I'm asking if anyone agrees with this play...

I also thought he was weak because I had flashed a couple of bluffs a while earlier, and after that he was constantly calling my raises (a lot of them cold) with random hands, perhaps tilting or wanting me to think that he was tilting. Sure, he could have have had a pocket pair, but I don't think this particular villain would have given me a free card on the flop, had he had PP (unless he had exactly AA or KK, a bit less likely since I had AK and he didn't reraise preflop).

[ilikeaces86]

Ban PLZ

[Galapogos]

Ok that's all I need. Someone stake me. I'm going in... <Clint Eastwood voice> alllll in.

[Sprayed]

I mean, you raised preflop to $40 and then followed it up with a flop bet of $40. That's really weak IMO.

It is weak of course, but it was meant to be weak (it was a trap). It doesn't matter because I know that it's weak and I know he thinks that it's weak (unless he knows that I know that he thinks that its weak and actually thinks it's strong, but I didn't give him credit for thinking that deep here). I was also sweetening the pot because I was convinced I had him beat. Making a weak play doesn't improve villains cards, but it can increase the profitability of an induced bluff.

Not to mention villain played this hand awful

I agree, but for different reasons. He probably put me on something like ATo, which was pretty close to the truth (and exactly what I wanted him to think I had). He just didn't see the trap, and can you blame him? The min raise is a bit strange, but perhaps he was setting up the river bluff. I guess he wanted it to look like a sweetener, but I didn't buy it. Perhaps he was trying to represent trips by giving two overcards correct odds to draw against made two pair.

He did make two mistakes, but you didn't mention them. His first mistake was to cold-call UTG raise with garbage (that's a standard "mistake" at this level though).

His main mistake was to represent two overs (his actual hand) by calling the flop, and then on the turn decide to be deceptive and go for a steal when a safe card came. This is a pretty classic mistake. A change of plan is more likely to work if a scare card comes. Here he was representing that the three helped him in some way, which didn't really make sense. The river card was even more safe for me, so I knew that if I was ahead on the flop, then I was ahead on the river as well.

I think that you are saying that you were thinking that he had nothing, but why not raise this up on the flop to find out? Also, I think you are being results oriented because you won this hand.

I got all the information I needed on the flop without making the pot too big. A bigger raise would have scared him away, or possibly he would have played back at me and I might have had to fold the best hand. Again if he would have raised on the flop, I probably would have moved in.

Also, I think you are being results oriented because you won this hand.

I might be a bit, but that's why I'm asking if anyone agrees with this play...

I also thought he was weak because I had flashed a couple of bluffs a while earlier, and after that he was constantly calling my raises (a lot of them cold) with random hands, perhaps tilting or wanting me to think that he was tilting. Sure, he could have have had a pocket pair, but I don't think this particular villain would have given me a free card on the flop, had he had PP (unless he had exactly AA or KK, a bit less likely since I had AK and he didn't reraise preflop).

You had an unmade hand the hole way. Any number of hands could have beat you. I don't think that this is anything to brag about or even say that you trapped him.

I'm not going to comment any further because this post and your other post shows that you are not open to criticism. It appears that you just want to post to say "hey, look at this amazing hand that I played and FU if you think it looks shitty". I'm just trying to help ya bro. It's not a very well played hand.

Thanks for the advertisement though and you can bet that the games you are playing will not be that soft for very long.

[nutsinho]

why are you guys being so mean? Jamie Gold is now a member at FTR and we are telling him to go away instead of embracing his wealth of knowledge. I don't understand.

[Toadstool]

How can you be convinced you had him beat on the flop when you were first to act and the only information you had about opponants cards was a cold call preflop?

[pocketfours]

You had an unmade hand the hole way. Any number of hands could have beat you. I don't think that this is anything to brag about or even say that you trapped him.

I did trap him, thats a fact. I also thought this hand was interesting, and mostly so because it's not easy to see what was actually going on in the hand (especially for lower stakes players). If this was excellent play, i'm not sure. If nobody here seems to think so, then it probably wasn't. Most of the posts here haven't been especially constructive though.

I'm not going to comment any further because this post and your other post shows that you are not open to criticism. It appears that you just want to post to say "hey, look at this amazing hand that I played and FU if you think it looks shitty". I'm just trying to help ya bro. It's not a very well played hand.

I didn't see your comments as very helpful, since you didn't seem to understand the motivation behind my play, you just didn't like it. Although I do agree with you that stronger play on the flop would have been the norm. Thats how I usually play, here I wanted to try something different.

I would have liked to hear some comments from other HS players. Gabe seemed to think a river check raise would have been better, but I would have liked to hear why. In this particular hand, check raising would have had the same result, but I can't bluff on the river if I intentionally show weakness on the flop and the turn.

Thanks for the advertisement though and you can bet that the games you are playing will not be that soft for very long.

Yada yada, thanks anyway for the insightful parts of your comments.

[pocketfours]

How can you be convinced you had him beat on the flop when you were first to act and the only information you had about opponants cards was a cold call preflop?

Finally something constructive, thanks for that. I was wondering why nobody asked this already, since this is the key question.

I only became convinced after his call on the flop, for several reasons:
1. Villain called or reraised most of my pre-flop raises in the last 20 or so hands before this one.

2. Having played with him before, I was pretty used to his post flop strategy. I had also cbet the flop every time and he used to reraise my cbet if he had any kind of hand, otherwise he would call. I also expected him to slowplay monster hands.

What could he have had:

1. 22: very unlikely that he had flopped quads.
2. 77: very unlikely, but this was pretty consistent with his play (he would have played it slow).
3. 33-66, 88-JJ: with these vulnerable medium strength hands I thought he would have raised my cbet.
4. 2x: I thought he wouldn't cold call pre-flop with 2x (except possibly K2s or A2s).
5. 7x: Possible, but again I think he would have raised my cbet.
6. QQ-AA: Possible hands, but he made a lot of reraises pre-flop and I usually called them, so I thought he would have reraised preflop with these as well. No point to reraise a lot of good hands preflop, but not your excellent hands.
7. 8x-Ax (two overcards): Very consistent with his play both pre-flop and on the flop.

His play was all the time consistent with having two overs, if that was true, then neither the turn or the river could have hurt me. He could have had A2s or K2s, but that was the risk I took. He also used to make big raises with big hands on the river, so when I saw his smallish river bet I knew I had him.

[Iwind]

Your play worked out here, the turn and river were good cards for you, but in general "trapping" out of position with overcards is not a winning play.

[pocketfours]

Your play worked out here, the turn and river were good cards for you, but in general "trapping" out of position with overcards is not a winning play.

Yes, I'm sure "in general" it is not winning play Here I had a good read on him (his cards and the fact that he likes to bluff almost every river he doesn't hit) and the flop was perfect as well. So in this special case I still think this was winning play.

Lets assume that we somehow would have seen his hole cards (or assume that my read was correct) and that he had exactly QT. And if we would also have known that this maniac will bluff at the river 100% of the time he doesn't hit. Wouldn't this then be the correct play? Or how would you have played it if you knew his cards?

The turn and the river were indeed perfect cards for my plan, but the added bonus here is that If a T or Q would have come (instead of the third deuce), then he might have just checked it down or made just single small bet.

He was only about 25% to win the hand on the flop, and even less if he would have been dominated by my A or K. I thought that if he hits, I will loose about $300 and if he misses, then I will win about $300. If we both hit, then I will also win. So seems clearly EV+, but of course my read could have been wrong too and I could have lost $300 100% of the time if he had flopped a monster...

[Iwind]

So in this special case I still think this was winning play.

Sure it was, in this special case you won, right I was just pointing out that it's not a good way to play against most players, sitting oop inducing bluffs and calling down multiple streets with ace high. I think speaking in a little more general terms is more interesting then just vs. a laggy fish who you have a amazing read on. But hey, that's just me, and it's your hand, nh sir

[pocketfours]

I was just pointing out that it's not a good way to play against most players, sitting oop inducing bluffs and calling down multiple streets with ace high.

Yes, usually it's not. And since this is the HS forum, we should all know that. Just trying to show how there can be value in surprising places. Even poker players should look out-of-the-box sometimes. Hope somebody got the point.

nh sir

Thanks m8

[mcatdog]

I'm not going to comment any further because this post and your other post shows that you are not open to criticism.

I think you've been more closed-minded in this thread than he has. I mean I agree with you that he's probably being results-oriented, and people who show up on FTR bragging about a hand that they played weird and won, usually disappear from FTR before long. But I think any time someone posts a hand and is willing to discuss it from a variety of different angles it's a good post. I don't get why people were so put off by this thread.

[Warpe]

What's the plan if our c-bet is raised on the flop? Are we betting semi-weak here to get a read?

[pocketfours]

What's the plan if our c-bet is raised on the flop? Are we betting semi-weak here to get a read?

About half the pot is usually my standard cbet, whether I have the goods or not, I don't want to seem too desperate to take the pot. I didn't intend to show weakness and a smaller bet keeps the pot in control. A bigger bet often looks just as weak imho.

Here the cbet can be seen as a value bet with very likely the best hand. If he raises the cbet we can't put him off PP, A2s, K2s or 7x, so I probably would have called a modest raise and folded to a bigger raise. Or perhaps reraised if my intuition still thought he was weak, but that's less likely.

[Sprayed]

I'm not going to comment any further because this post and your other post shows that you are not open to criticism.

I think you've been more closed-minded in this thread than he has. I mean I agree with you that he's probably being results-oriented, and people who show up on FTR bragging about a hand that they played weird and won, usually disappear from FTR before long. But I think any time someone posts a hand and is willing to discuss it from a variety of different angles it's a good post. I don't get why people were so put off by this thread.

Maybe I'm wrong that he didn't play this hand optimally. My bad. I was trying to discuss it from another angle that he wasn't seeing. I'm not put off at all. He can choose to play however he likes. I said that I wasn't going to comment any further because basically our discussion wasn't going anywhere and we both had different opinions.

I understand what he was trying to do and am open to his strategy. I just think that it wasn't used appropriately in this situation considering the strength of his hand, how he bet, and the fact that he thinks it was good because he won.