|
Originally Posted by Xianti
Unless you have solid, reliable historical information that someone consistently bluffs, you should not assume someone is bluffing.
Disagree. Considers this.
You and another player are heads-up on on a $20 pot and he's on a short stack. River brings up a potential flush. You check, he bets his last $5. Do you call?
You can make this call, be wrong most of the time and still come out ahead! You need a greater than 1 in 5 chance of winning showdown to call.
However, if he had $10 left and bet it all you would need a greater than 1 in 3 chance of winning showdown to make the call.
It's good to be the taller stack...
Another reason it's good to be the tall stack. Lets say you're on the same $20 pot and both have $15 of chips left. Possible flush comes on the turn. You check, he bets $5. Now it gets more complicated. If he has the flush, you may end up having to pay up to another $10 to see it. Also you need to consider the odds the river will give you a hand better than his flush or give his hand a better non-flush hand than yours. A much stronger case for a lay-down. The threat of another $10 to see showdown allows the tall stack to make a stronger bluff without putting as many chips at immediate risk.
Also, consider the flip side. Assuming the bluffer would always lose showdown, the bluff only needs to be successful greater than 1 in 4 times to be profitable. Both of you can make the wrong move most of the time and still be profitable. Fun game, eh?
To parphrase Caro:
If you're not catching bluffs, you're not calling enough.
If you're not caught bluffing, you're not bluffing enough.
|