I only started studying poker (as opposed to just playing it) about 3 weeks ago, putting in an hour or so of off table study each day. A lot of what I've been reading about and trying to apply in my game this week is betting/calling/raising/folding strategy. And I've begun thinking about my river calls as "bluff catchers" because that's how people talk about them. That is to say, we mostly make calls on the river with hands that are not strong enough to bet or raise (unless we decide to bluff), and are too strong to fold. SO we call, hoping (based on the actions our opponent has taken), that our opponent is bluffing with air or a very marginal hand.

But I've noticed that when I call on the river I am rarely bluff catching in this sense. Mostly I find that my opponent has a middle strength hand with reasonable showdown value that s/he has overvalued. Very rarely, when I call and my opponent turns the hand face up, do I find there has been an attempt to bluff.

Which leads me to wonder…just how rare is bluffing in microstakes games today? Because I am reading a lot of strategy aimed at people playing somewhat higher stakes where players are playing a much more balanced strategy that includes a fair amount of bluffing. So I keep thinking a fair amount of bluffing must be going on in my games. But I'm starting to realize this is probably not the case. Has anyone else thought about this or come to any conclusions about bluffing frequencies in 5nl and 10nl 6max games online?

I think its an important question because when I'm trying to put together a story being told by my opponents actions, I feel like trying to uncover a bluff story is less useful than trying to uncover a story of a bad player who is overvaluing a middle strength or even marginal hand, and perhaps requires a different way of "reading" the opponent (though I'm not really sure how I would go about reading this).

Notice, that they actually bluffing bc those hands are often don't frequently better or get called by worse. Those opponents just use bad ranges and that's why hands with more absolute strength are almost always the better hands to bluff catch with. When you move up and face stronger regulars it's often more about blockers when choosing good hands to bluff catch with bc you now those opponents won't often bluff with those mediocre hands.

In my experience, microstakes villains don't bluff as often as they should in theory, and when they do, it's often with combos that aren't particularly good choices. I agree with OP that they often bet with mid-strength SDV hands that should be check-calling or checking behind.
A quick rule of thumb for deciding whether to call with a "mid-strength bluffcatcher" in the micros is to ask yourself "Would villain conceivably bet with a worse hand for 'value'?" (because he doesn't understand what a value-bet really is, and just bets when he thinks he has the best hand).

e.g. Suppose you have KJ or QJ on JxxTx and either the flop or turn got checked through. A lot of micro players will bet the river with any jack or even a ten, or something stupid like 88, so you should snap-call with KJ/QJ, since not only do you beat all airballs. You also beat villain's "pointless" bets with SDV hands like QJ, J9 or AT. In the micros, you rarely need to call with bottom pair or ace high, like you sometimes have to at 50NL+.

P.S. It's quite useful/important to take a note on the players that don't seem to understand the concept of value-betting. I used to write things like "Bets without purpose - TPNK on the river" in my notes for those kind of players. These are the same kind of players that are incapable of checking back KK or A2 on Axx.

Oh mate, in these games you can absolutely kill it, but your approaching it slightly wrong...

It is not the field of players as a whole that you want to be thinking about, it's each individual opponent. In these games you don't find one specific style, but you do find very 'imbalanced' players.

Most of the time these guys are going to be playing purely the strength of their hand, or are bluffing almost every hand. It's funny because the bluffers quite often don't bet when they have something strong, which makes things easier.

These guys are really easy to 'exploit'. If they are folding every time they miss, we half pot bet almost every flop. If they are going mad with bluffs, we let them bluff when we have a little strength and completely wipe them out when we are strong.

...Whether microstakes players bluff more or less on average isn't important. This will be different on every site, on every table even. What you want to do is work out what each induvidual opponent is doing. At those tables this is very easy to do. They don't mix it up.

Yes, that's a really good question to ask/good way to look at it. Thanks.

It is a very limit or even site dependent. But if the lowest limit is significant for the players, there is a good chance it is mostly face value. The next highest limit probably sees more bluffing already, and/as they are not first-timers (who generally are not good enough to frequently bluff), nor will the buffs be as succesful vs. complete fish, I suppose. But if the next level up is again more significant money for the players, or the nits of the level below have got up there, it would contain less bluffing.

I think it depends a lot on what these people think they are doing. I'm at nl2 and I see a lot of fishy players or bad regs bet the river and showdown with something that looks like a bluff, but to them they might think they are value betting. So I'd say it really depends on what they think their doing and how you think of it. If they bet f/t/r with 8's on KdJdQs4c7d I would say they're bluffing but they might think they're value betting.

When I play 10NL I generally play quite imbalanced, value heavy on the river, and quite imbalanced value light on the flop. Also, if the fd misses, it is more likely than ever that villain bluffs, because they read that in a book.
But, it is very site dependent, and I would expect to have to pick and choose opponents versus bad regs on a larger site, such as Stars or Party. 10NL, can usually be beat by straight up TAG, so long as you really play true TAG and not sorta tight sorta aggro. You are free to be transparent. For instance, unless the opponent is a known potential danger, I will not flat pre (other than BB defense) at all. Only fold or raise. This removes the middle stuff and lets you have easier decisions. Anyone with a hud should see right through this and 4b you more. The ones that do so will also have very high bet frequency, so you can continue with the higher value stuff or fold pre. If a good reg is to your left, just switch tables.
All of this only works if you are dedicated to being imbalanced, as in overly TAG. You can still profit by playing balanced good poker, however, and just watch for specific fish to behave predictably, and that would prepare you for the next higher stake. It all comes together when your red line (win/loss without showdown) comes up out of the toilet. That is a rule I have about stakes, you are not ready until that line becomes not so negative, closer to zero. Does not have to be in the positive, but closer.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk