Inducing bluffs

[jo]

One thing I'm working on is thinking about inducing bluffs, instead of simply betting every street. I need to learn when to pick my spots however. Here was one of them. Did I pick my spot correctly, or have I just got fancy play syndrome?

Villain had played unremarkably - he was loose preflop although he rarely raised. Postflop weak tight.

Paradise Poker No-Limit Hold'em, $1 BB (4 handed) Hand History Converter Tool from FlopTurnRiver.com (Format: FlopTurnRiver)

BB ($210.00)
Hero ($179.30)
Button ($202.70)
SB ($173.45)

Preflop: Hero is UTG with A, J. SB posts a blind of $1.
Hero raises to $7, 2 folds, BB calls $5.

Flop: ($15) 5, A, A (2 players)
BB checks, Hero bets $9, BB calls $9.

Turn: ($33) T (2 players)
BB checks, Hero checks.

River: ($33) K (2 players)
BB bets $24, Hero calls $24.

Final Pot: $81

[ripjohngotti]

Yeah i dont see anything too fancy about that...


Bet Check Bet...

[aislephive]

If he is weak tight I don't think you want to induce a bluff from this kind of player. I would just keep betting. The only value to checking the turn is to get a value bet in on the river that he might call but he might have folded to a turn bet.

[Fnord]

It depends, I induce bluffs all of the time. Unless you have a very specific read that they check a lot, just about anyone will take a stab at a pot in certain spots.

[jo]

Well I figured the board was pretty dry by the turn, and firing another barrel would likely make him fold (or I was in big trouble against 55 or AK/AQ). I thought checking the turn might encourage him to take a stab at the pot on the river.

In the end he had KT, so I wasn't really inducing a bluff.

[johnny_fish]

Pretty standard. If you think he can stack off with Ace-rag then just bet/bet/push.

[Fnord]

I play it the same. I just don't think this is a big pot hand against a reasonable non-hyper-aggro opponent.

The other advanage of lines like this against regulars is that it discourges people takeing pots like this away from your weak hands with showdown value.

[LimpinAintEZ]

The other advanage of lines like this against regulars is that it discourges people takeing pots like this away from your weak hands with showdown value.

do you mean that you run the check/check turn then check/call on the river with a strong hand, in position, (this is a pretty strong hand) in Order to showdown more often with weaker hands? is this pretty effective?

I thought we were only inducing bluffs when we intend on check-raising...? If you are check/check then check/call the river that doesn't seem to fit the question - I would at least min-raise the river there

[DaNutsInYoEye]

I thought we were only inducing bluffs when we intend on check-raising...?

No.

[Fnord]

Opponent is kinda TAggy, well at least he tries.

PokerStars No-Limit Hold'em, $2 BB (6 handed) Hand History Converter Tool from FlopTurnRiver.com (Format: FlopTurnRiver)

UTG ($217.65)
MP ($313.45)
Fnord ($197)
Button ($361.10)
SB ($259)
BB ($227.30)

Preflop: Fnord is CO with A, A.
1 fold, MP raises to $4, Fnord raises to $12, 2 folds, BB calls $10, MP folds.

Flop: ($29) 9, 5, 4 (2 players)
BB checks, Fnord bets $20, BB calls $20.

Turn: ($69) 2 (2 players)
BB checks, Fnord checks.

River: ($69) 2 (2 players)
BB bets $50, Fnord calls $50.

Final Pot: $169

Tight/passive opponent

PokerStars No-Limit Hold'em, $1.00 BB (6 handed) Hand History Converter Tool from FlopTurnRiver.com (Format: FlopTurnRiver)

CO ($136.15)
Button ($116.25)
SB ($67.15)
BB ($39.05)
UTG ($100)
Fnord ($219.40)

Preflop: Fnord is MP with A, J.
UTG calls $1, Fnord raises to $4, 1 fold, Button calls $4, 2 folds, UTG calls $3.

Flop: ($13.50) 5, 9, A (3 players)
UTG checks, Fnord bets $9, Button folds, UTG calls $9.

Turn: ($31.50) A (2 players)
UTG checks, Fnord checks.

River: ($31.50) 8 (2 players)
UTG bets $9, Fnord calls $9.

Final Pot: $49.50

[elipsesjeff]

I've had some success lately checking the turn then raising the river a good 2-3x. Not only am I winning the pots but I see a lot of bad calls by good players with middle pair who can't laydown , even for a 3/4 pot size raise on the river.

[LimpinAintEZ]

FNORD, on both those hands you just call river - Can I ask why? Those both seem like hands you should raise the river - not pushing, but value raising - Are we afraid of running 2's? I can see just calling when scare cards hit the rivers, but these boards and rivers are all pretty good for our hands - Is it just the point that you want to check more Marginal hands to cheaper showdowns? uggh - i just don't quite see it

NUTS - "no" - thanks for the detailed response

[Fnord]

lol @ tight players

PokerStars No-Limit Hold'em, $2 BB (6 handed) Hand History Converter Tool from FlopTurnRiver.com (Format: FlopTurnRiver)

MP ($221)
CO ($78.45)
Button ($314)
SB ($231.20)
Fnord ($222.20)
UTG ($40.50)

Preflop: Fnord is BB with K, A.
4 folds, SB raises to $6, Fnord calls $4.

Flop: ($12) 7, 5, K (2 players)
SB checks, Fnord bets $9, SB calls $9.

Turn: ($30) 2 (2 players)
SB checks, Fnord checks.

River: ($30) 8 (2 players)
SB bets $16, Fnord calls $16.

Final Pot: $62

Results in white below:
SB has Kc Kh (three of a kind, kings).
Fnord has Kd Ah (one pair, kings).
Outcome: SB wins $62.

[Robert]

jo,

standard hand against someone who's weaktight postflop. nh

[Silly String]

Fnord, could you explain the thought process behind the AA & the AK hands. I am guessing you put the AA villain on air and wanted to induce the bluff instead of folding him out on the turn? Then why not raise the river?

In the AK hand, why are you controlling the size of the pot. It is a blinds battle, and he could easily have KT+ here. Wouldn't youjust value bet this down. His check/call says TPNK or I don't believe you. Are you just feigning weakness on a safe board to give up a free card, so you will get a river bluff?
Lastly, how tight is tight? You say tight, but no V$IP figure is posted, so how tight are these villains? Are we inducing a bluff each time or are we controlling the pot size?

[jo]

I thought we were only inducing bluffs when we intend on check-raising...? If you are check/check then check/call the river that doesn't seem to fit the question - I would at least min-raise the river there

Well my take in this, which is admittedly a concept that I learned from limit, is that you're adopting something of a way-ahead/way-behind line. If I raise pre-flop and then bet both the turn and river I'm basically advertising the fact I have an ace, and the only action I'll get is from 55 or another ace, some of which have me drawing slim.

If instead I c-bet the flop and then check the turn, the range of hands I get action from is now huge. Nearly all opponents short-handed will take a stab at this pot with anything. However, if I then raise, I'm back to getting called or even reraised by a range of hands, some of which have me beat. I may be giving my opponenents too much credit here though. Perhaps it would be worth at least slinging in a min-raise once in a while.

[LimpinAintEZ]

i think we should be check/calling the river only with hands we are very unsure about - In all the examples I have seen, I think we should be c/raising the river...As for getting re-raised on the river by an even better hand, that will happen from time to time but those are few and far between IMO - How many times are players going to check there good hands on the river to us? In those cases it seems to me that they lose on their big hands there -

When I see players check the river (or just call) with a strong hand it signals to me that they are weak-tight players - So from then on I will be getting out of there way with my mediocre hands - i will bet the flops and maybe the turns but after that its pretty obvious im behind most of the time against those players...no way am i letting them ck/raise me on the river -

It just seems that our big hands don't come along often enough that we can check/call behind with big hands there...

[dsaxton]

I don't really think this is a spot where you are concerned about inducing bluffs, since your opponent almost always has a made hand once he calls the flop bet. It's just a question of winning the maximum / losing the minimum against his holding.

In this regard, I think it is completely player dependent as to how you play the turn. Against a tight, knowledgable player, you might want to check the turn as he often won't give you much more action unless you're beat. Trip aces with a marginal kicker is a hand that can't stand much action from this type of player.

If your opponent is a weak player who routinely plays ace rag, and thinks trip aces is the stone cold nuts, just keep betting.

I'm not sure if this analysis has anything at all to do with your original intent behind starting this thread.

[jo]

I don't really think this is a spot where you are concerned about inducing bluffs, since your opponent almost always has a made hand once he calls the flop bet. It's just a question of winning the maximum / losing the minimum against his holding.

In this regard, I think it is completely player dependent as to how you play the turn. Against a tight, knowledgable player, you might want to check the turn as he often won't give you much more action unless you're beat. Trip aces with a marginal kicker is a hand that can't stand much action from this type of player.

If your opponent is a weak player who routinely plays ace rag, and thinks trip aces is the stone cold nuts, just keep betting.

I'm not sure if this analysis has anything at all to do with your original intent behind starting this thread.

Yes, this analysis is very much along the lines I was thinking. I'm trying to get out of the mentality of 'I've got a good hand so I should bet' and think a bit deeper. But I would just add that I think another advantage of checking behind a tight thinking player, is that it often induces a bluff from them on the river when they are behind with a pocket pair or ace rag, hence the title of my post.

Obviously my read was way off on this guy, and he was just crap, but oh well.

[dsaxton]

Well, in this situation, your opponents hand virtually always has showdown value, so he will rarely "bluff."