well I'll make it as straight forward as possible. I play at 50 and 100nl cash right now and I rarely ever pure bluff, I'll barrel non 3-bet dry boards , but rarely will I push hard with absolutely zero equity on semi-wet boards. I do ok right now, but I'm wondering if this will hold me back when I go up to the higher stakes, sort of like how set miners can't win, will bluffing with complete air infrequently be a crutch past 100nl 6-max? This is not to say I don't make plays here and there, I just think my image is a guy who patiently waits and people give me credit, I'll 3-bet the turn when I gain some equity, I'll 3-bet a strong flush draw on the flop, yada yada yada... but I will never bluff at an AQ5ssd with 89 in a 3-bet pot

Even if you were the one who 3 bet?

depends on how the opponent plays, but it's not always a no.

I'm not an expert at the higher stakes, but I'm going to probably say that:

Simply asking yourself whether or not bluffing is profitable or not, is not really getting to the point.

Rather, when can you find spots where it is profitable for you to bluff... Is much better.

You may or may not be able to profit at higher stakes without bluffing. I don't know personally. I've read places that "if you don't bluff, you can't win at poker."

But truthfully, simply asking whether bluffing or not is a hindrance isn't really the right question to be asking. You have to know when it is likely profitable for you to bluff, or to be bluffing in optimal-like frequencies etc.

The real problem is, if your opponents know you don't bluff, then they will know you are always value betting (which is the purpose of optimal bluffing frequencies). So with optimal bluffing, you are mixing and balancing, so you can get paid off with your value hands.

With read dependent, range dependent bluffs, it may be +EV for you to bluff at a pot, rather than to passively check it down.

So those are two reasons to bluff (there may be more reasons). But both help you to generate profit!

Maybe not the answer you were looking for, but hope that helps!

Like example:

If you know your opponent will flat a 3-bet oop with AQ-AJ, 1010, 99, 88, KQ-KJ... And you know your opponent will fold AJ, 1010, 99, 88, KJ, to a c-bet on a AQ5 flop, then it is +EV for you to take a stab at this pot. And you definitely prefer position when you try to stab at these types of pots!

So you shouldn't say never in this case, because it may be +EV for you to bluff here. This is really a matter of going through the logical process by using combinatorics and poker probability.

And the good thing is, that if you take a stab at this pot with 89, and your opponent calls or raises you, you can just dump your hand. This is why you should frequently bet with a polarized range.

Well you are talking playing steady players on dry boards, which I c-bet and barrel all the time. I am talking making Ivey bets with zero equity on wet boards, AJTssd boards, which I will never do, ever, I will never bluff with zero equity on a wet board with two undercards, at the level I play people call too much for bluffing on multidraw boards, meaning when there are multiple things to hit, my opponents will usually call if they hit any of it even if I perfectly represent a better made hand and I've been playing tight, people just don't fold at 50 and 100nl if there is even a 1% chance I am bluffing, and I don't bluff that much, people just don't like to fold. Just now I 3-bet a loose player from the button, flopped top two pair and got called three streets with a weak pp, people do not like to fold.

Know your image, know your perceived range , know your villain, know their perceived range and then look at their fold to Cbet stats in raised and 3bet pots and fire accordingly.

At "Phil Ivey stakes" I think he can barrel that board with/with out pot equity because a board with that many draws and a board with A high is going to be a fold or a shove for the villain so his bet is really to induce an All In commitment on the flop or discern the opponent's hand strength on the turn if he calls. When pros barrel like that, they are barreling with equity, it's just not with pot equity but perceived equity based on how the card affects both ranges (try using pokerstove, plot a PFR and CC range and compare on a low dry flop. Then add a K on the turn and compare again, the equity of the ranges is in the PFRs favor and therefore he barrels turn and probably river)

Edit: Perceived equity is a really big deal, if you're not cbetting and barreling based on perceived equity and only on your hand equity your non-showdown winnings are going to be really bad.

There are a lot of players who do not think of my perceived equity is the real problem, sometimes I play it perfect and people just don't care, they'll call if they have anything. What stakes do you play?

By the way, Ivey lost in that hand to Daniel Negreanu's redraw to two pair (Ivey had air).

Yeah, you have to be careful vs. players like that and continuation bet a much tighter range (also, they may know you know what the scare cards are, so if you're betting the turn and not betting the river they actually may be better than you think and they are just double floating you at a point where they know most of your range stone cold bluffs the turn and you'll shut down on the river if they call again) Also, the success rate of bluffing the A, K, Q scare cards goes down as you approach the button because your range widens to the point where you're probably over representing them.

I don't really care how the hand ended up, I was just trying to help you understand the thought process Ivey was barreling with.

Ha, they don't respect your raises at the levels you are talking of, cause I play them too.

But just try to work on your range vs. range type game. What is my "perceived range" based on factors A, B, and C. And what percentage of my opponent's range will fold to my perceived range, etc.

I remember there was a thread which posed a very similar question. It asked if you could be a (higher stakes) winning player if you never pure bluffed, but we're allowed to semi-bluff. You might want to dig it up if you can - I think it was a decent thread if memory serves.

After a cursory search, I couldn't find it, but maybe someone else will have more luck.

I'm not a high stakes player, so I cannot comment this from strategy point of view, but I think this is quite straightforward as a theoretical thinking process.

No matter how your opponent plays, there is always a balance in value for fold equity and implied odds. Depeding on the opponent you can either steal pots by aggression or get paid well with legitimate hands, assuming of course they don't outplay you. If they fold too much, you should be polarizing your range, i.e. bluffing with air and value betting only good hands. If they call too much, you should be merging your range, i.e. value betting thinner - also with somewhat marginal hands and bluffing less with complete air. It seems that your opponents are of the calling type, so you shouldn't be too conserned about profitable bluffing until you're moving up (where they respect your raises). Just get the value from where it's easily extracted.

The answer to your question is so simple that I think you may have overlooked the obvious.

People at your level don't fold very often if they have ANYTHING, even ace high, thus, bluffing isn't profitable.

As you move up in level, players realize that calling down with bottom/mid pair and even ace high is not winning poker and so they will fold more.

When this happens, bluffing becomes more and more profitable.

As bluffing becomes more profitable, you will slowly incorporate it into your style of play.

But you just can't do it now at your current stakes simply because it is not profitable.

that is how I see it.

I do bluff now, just never on multidraw boards with zero equity. Lord knows how many times I've bluffed at people who have had hands that were beat by anything on the board, yet they still call, ATT99 boards called 3 streets by QQ. This happened so much that I have to number the things in my head when I'm playing so I don't make that same leak:

1. don't bluff with zero equity on multidraw/wet boards
2. don't make big calls in non 3-bet pots without a really good hand

these are my biggest leaks, or were, and I will continue to work on my bluffing as I move up the stakes. thanks for the input.

Bluffing forces your opponents to open up their calling ranges (expand), so if your opponent's knew your strategy, this would be exploitable.

An example, I was playing a sitngo, and one player was just betting every single hand to the river. Because I knew this person probably wasn't betting for value every time they entered the pot, it forced me to open up my calling range. Luckily, this person was pretty obvious with their bluffing and value betting patterns, but of course I could not just wait for the nuts every hand, just to call them down to the river. So I had to call them down occasionally to make them indifferent to bluffing (with top pair type hands).

So sometimes it's beneficial to bet on these wet boards (in optimal ratios), because it may force your opponent to call you down occasionally with top pair hands, to make you indifferent to bluffing. But of course, I don't think you really have to balance your ranges like this until you move way up the stakes, I don't think medium-level stakes really forces you to bet/call in optimal ratios.

Just yapping...

you need to range people and become fearless. people have a threshold for pot sizes with certain hands, so just figure that threshold and tip it then win maniez. careful not to spew

just got called 3 streets when I 3-bet by AQ on a completely dry board, I can be plenty fearless, but even when I am open raising less than 20% of the pots people call me down with A-high.

I'd like to have villians who call 3 streets at NL100 with QQ on a board of AA10109....who site do you play at, RoboCop?