Bad Bluffs

[bigslikk]

I've noticed that when you bluff on the flop randomly (c-bet w/o even a draw or overs) that you get screwed more often than not. The bluff''s that come naturally are more successful- ex, ur drawing to a straight, 3rd spade comes on, you fire b/c looks like ur were drawing.

Whenever u think 'hey i think ill bluff' u often get screwed cause when the person calls ur garbage ur like 'now what?'

[Toadstool]

Don't just bluff randomly, represent something. e.g. You have a pocket pair and call looking to hit a set, look at the hand # and if it is 1 or 2 then play as if you hit a set even if you didnt, it makes it harder for your opponant to read you while still making it -EV for him to call, if they do call thats OK because you know they will call your value bets. button raises, you have XX, raise if the hand ends in a certain #, just to randomise your play etc.

[andy-akb]

Most cbets arent bluffs, a good portion of the time you have the best hand and cbets really shouldnt be random anyways. If you get into this situation too often Id say you are raising too often preflop, cbetting into too many multiway pots, and/or need to work on your postflop play in general.

Yea, random bluffs in general arent great you need to have them make sense to your opponent. A cbet makes sense, you raised preflop, you have a hand, you bet on the flop and they will assume you have the hand you represented preflop and will fold. Even if they dont work all the time they are still profitable, for example if I make pot sized cbets, they only need to be successful half the time to show an immediate profit.

If your cbets are getting called all the time and puttign you into tough spots then cbet less against opponents that dont fold.

[DaHorror]

Most cbets arent bluffs, a good portion of the time you have the best hand ...

Case in point below...Ace hi is good more often than seems logical when being called down.

http://www.flopturnriver.com/phpBB2/...oker-44229.htm

[pgil]

wouldnt a pot sized c-bet need to work more than half the time to be profitable. it would only need to work half the time to be break even.

[bigslikk]

I feel like c-betting as the pf raiser is too obvious; everyone expects it. i.e. U dont get much credit when u bet in position as the pf-raiser as opposed to bettin oop after limping pre-f. in a multiway

[miw210]

From my experience, playing very tightly is the best way to force others to take your bluffs seriously.

[biondino]

Yes but the plus if you're the PF Raiser is that you might have QQ+. The other thing is that anyone who played, say, KQ or AJ might feel that even if you didn't hit, you're still ahead, and fold.

Where you have to worry are the players who limp/called because they might well have Axs or a PP and will therefore be more likely to call if they get a draw or if they believe that you are simply c-betting with AK.

[The Izebox]

I feel like c-betting as the pf raiser is too obvious; everyone expects it. i.e. U dont get much credit when u bet in position as the pf-raiser as opposed to bettin oop after limping pre-f. in a multiway

Just because most players c-bet in position when they are the preflop raiser doesnt mean you shouldnt do it! The reason that people do it so much is because it is a good play. If you c-bet every hand where you raised preflop, the pot is heads up, and you are in position then you will take down the pot enough to make it a VERY profitable play. Also, if you bet your made hands in the same manner (avoiding the impulse to check and slowplay) then you will eventually get serious action against marginal hands.

But I just cant agree with you that you have a better chance to take down a multiway pot by limping preflop and betting the flop then cbetting when you are the preflop raiser. It simply isnt accurate.