The Value Bluff?

For some time now I have been trying out a slightly different river bluff.

Instead of putting in a big bet to push others off the pot I put in a small bet around 1/4 or 1/3 or so of the pot and try and represent betting for value. It seems these days that everyone plays so aggressively and expects a big river bet, that a small river bet rings alarm bells for many players - because they have read about value betting.

It seems to be pretty effective and the reason I like it is if called you don't lose that many more chips. If raised you can fold and then not try it again for awhile. On the other hand if they fold (and it happens alot) you can take down a good pot.

Anyway I haven't read about this anywhere and just wanted to know if anyone else has tried something like this before and what success they have had with it.

Thanks.

This is also called a post-oak bluff. I think it has its place against weak/tight players, but isn't effective against solid or aggressive players (or loose calling stations obv). A 1/4-1/3 pot bet only has to be a bluff more than 1 in 4 or 5 times to make calling profitable. So as the post-oak bluffer, it has to be a value bet more than 3 out of 4 times, in which case you're losing a lot of value on your value bets. Make sense? Put another way, if your small river bets are usually bluffs then people are going to figure that out and they won't work, and if you make small value bets enough that they aren't sure, you're losing $ you could have made by value betting more.

So as the post-oak bluffer, it has to be a value bet more than 3 out of 4 times, in which case you're losing a lot of value on your value bets.

Something bugs me about this, but I am not sure what. It seems to be mathmatically true (in the game theoretical sense), but practically false.

Maybe it's a sample size issue? In one session, at one table, how many river value bets are you going to make? In those cases, how many times are the villians the SAME villians, and how much attention are they paying?

Let's say in a 2 hour session full ring table, I might play 150 hands, see 35 flops. Maybe 5 of those are "bluff or value bet river". The majority are decided on flop or turn or have trivial river action (obv. fold/raise/check)

Let's double it and say 4 hours, 10 rivers, some you want to value bet, some you want to check down, some you want to bluff, and some you want to fold! Let say you make 1 post oak, 1 pot sized/push bluff, 1 small value bet, and 3 bigger value bets, 2 check downs (and 2 folds).

How is someone going to read that your post oak is likely to be a bluff enough that you have to game theoretically balance it with 3 or 4 small value bets?

Game theory comes in when you are playing good regulars - or anyone you have a longer history with than one session.

I think just mixing it up a little is fine. I often think that people (IF they are paying attention) are going to remember the last action more - so I would be inclined to post oak "soon" after a small value bet (which are sometimes appropriately max EV as well as post oak balancers).

Originally Posted by zenbitz

How is someone going to read that your post oak is likely to be a bluff enough that you have to game theoretically balance it with 3 or 4 small value bets?

I don't think they have to read that it's likely to be a bluff, because I think that the default action from a solid player with any type of hand is to call (or raise) a small river bet. MAYBE once you've set it up with a smallish value bet, a solid player will fold to a post-oak bluff, but if they think it through, they should realize that they can keep calling these pretty frequently and only have to catch one bluff in four for it to be +EV.

I think post-oak bluffs have a place in the arsenal, but mainly against weak/tight opponents. I think against solid opponents you lose too much value "setting up" your post-oak bluffs for it be worthwhile.

Originally Posted by zook

I think post-oak bluffs have a place in the arsenal, but mainly against weak/tight opponents. I think against solid opponents you lose too much value "setting up" your post-oak bluffs for it be worthwhile.

I should have said that I totally agree with this - only good against weak/tight players.

I think against a solid player you have to put them on air/monster when you have air. If you think they have something decent, then you are going to have to make a big bet or raise to fold them. If you have a showdownable hand, then you are probably better off checking down.

Thanks for the replies guys - I had heard of post oak bluff but didn't realise that I was actually using it.

This play does work best against tight passive/weak players and I can see that a solid player would call this bet with any decent hand. Perhaps I'm just lucky to play on a site/level without many solid players at the moment.

Just another way to mix things up I guess?

Oh and what does "post oak" refer to?

i read about "post oak" in on of the Harrington books, and i dont even think he knows where it came from. Some backwoods game from Texas i think he says.

I think its in super system first. I dont know if he invented it though.

yeah, i think Harrington says that he heard it from Doyle

the first guy that robbed doyle in texas didn't have a gun, he had a stick of oak under his coat made to look like a gun. Amarillo Slim figured it out, and the "Post Oak Bluff" was born.