Seminteresting statistics regarding bluffing...

As a tool to gauge the effectiveness of my bluffs, around 2 weeks ago I decided to record every single bluff I would make. I noted every single stonecold/semibluff that I felt I was PROBABLY BEHIND on during the hand, not including bets for information when I was unsure I had the best hand, and not including stealing blinds in a SnG. When my bet made everyone fold, I would add +the number of chips in the pot before my bet. When my bet didn't make everyone fold, I would -the number of chips of my bet. I feel that my sample size is now significant enough for publication. Here are the results:

41 total bluffs. 19775 total chips bluffed. Largest bluff: 3200 chips. Smallest bluff: 20. Average bluff: 482 chips. Net gain: -915 chips. Average return on investment: -22 chips.

So I'm losing twenty-two chips per bluff. The fact that I play freerolls and the lowest limits exclusively might be why my bluffs aren't proving profitable. Perhaps it's more profitable to bluff at higher limits, but I don't have to worry about that for a while.

As a result of these findings, I plan on bluffing with much less frequency. Maybe I'm bluffing too early in a tournament, maybe I'm bluffing the wrong people. But whatever nuance is escaping me, I'll refrain from bluffing most of the time from now on. Rockville here I come!

Small sample size.

Also, semi-bluffs are the bomb. I don't naked bluff much.

Since Poker always starts as a struggle for the antes I think that implies that as the blinds go up, semi-bluffing should be more profitable. Combine this with the fact that you should play looser for larger antes, and tighter for smaller ones. I suspect that stone-cold bluffing would be more profitable at higher stakes too? (Often, semi-bluffing is a good way to start a successful stone cold bluff.)

Of course, the degree of profitablility is a function of the probability that your opponent(s) will fold. That is, the above conclusions rest on the assumption that you have to be able to reasonably suspect there's a possibility your opponent(s) will fold. So, I think if you are playing with a bunch of calling stations, maybe implicit collision would dilute the profitability gained by increasing your bluffing frequency, and maybe even ruin the edge you'd gain from bluffing more for larger antes/pots.

I noted this quote:

I'm losing twenty-two chips per bluff. The fact that I play freerolls and the lowest limits exclusively might be why my bluffs aren't proving profitable.

And that's it exactly. Cloutier and Brunson both talked about you never bluff crappy or average players, never. Because they will call you on it if they have top pair med kicker, they'll call you on two pair when you're betting like you have the set or boat, etc. All the little nuances, the check raises, the re-raises, swinging like you have the boat will all be lost on them if they have anything.

And by call I mean call, I love a man that re-raises a bluff, but calling stations are all over low stakes games. On PS I play .05/.10 and I let the blinds eat me up until I have the nuts.

You can only bluff tight players, and by their defniition no one is going to be tight in low stakes games.

Freeroll games... eh. People are gonna call everything.

Originally Posted by Iconoclastic

As a result of these findings, I plan on bluffing with much less frequency. Maybe I'm bluffing too early in a tournament, maybe I'm bluffing the wrong people. But whatever nuance is escaping me, I'll refrain from bluffing most of the time from now on. Rockville here I come!

the way I understand it, you shouldnt bluff early in the tournament (by this I mean no stone cold bluffs but the occassional semi bluff should be alright), you should instead wait until the fields been narrowed down wuite a bit then come out all guns firing.

But I hardly ever play tournies - im a cash game man - so I could be wrong... someone correct me if im wrong.

And yea I also think that in freerolls people are likely to call with anything quasi-decent.

I also think that in freerolls people are likely to call with anything quasi-decent.

I don't think quasi-decent is a qualifier for many freeroll players. I've seen a number of players call (or bet/raise/reraise) with literally any two cards. Some of these players even switch gears and become good players if they double up early (and they take advantage of both their early chiplead and their early maniac table image). Others continue to put money into the pot with any two cards until they lose all their chips.

I saw one guy very early on reach 15 times the starting chipstack going all-in with crap like 7-4, 8-2, etc... He was by far the table chipleader and he was in the top few in the tourney. Of course, he then proceeded to lose it all within a matter of minutes by going all-in with crap like 7-4, 8-2, etc...

learning/growing poker player, but finding at least so far the merits of super system, trust doyle, he's been doing it a while. anyway rule number one, always have an out... maybe stone cold bluffs are nice and feel good to pull off... but it isn't that great of a play, unless you have been pushing X player around all day and have a read or want to keep table image, even still i would hold back and fold if called, definetly avoid showdown if you can, but yeah, rule number one, always have an out. occassionally even you'll hit your out, even better then

OK. I'll cut out the stone bluffs and continue with my semibluffs then. We'll see if 40 bluffs later it's had any effect on the return on investment.