I've seen it said in a lot of places, that if you (re)raise with a value hand pre-flop, intending to fold to a raise, you've "turned your hand into a bluff."

I don't understand this logic. If you made a thin value bet on the river or any other street, and folded to a raise, no one would say you "turned your hand into a bluff," so why do they say this pre-flop?

If you raised first in with a decent hand and folded to a raise, no one would say you were bluffing.

It would only make sense to me if you knew your opponent only played raise-or-fold in that pre-flop situation, and even then I'm not sure I completely agree.

****

A second question. It seems to be advocated that 3-betting a lot pre-flop is simply good and correct play. But barring the case where opponents, both original raiser and the rest of the table, fold a lot, can anyone enlighten me with the reasons why frequent 3-betting should be good?

If you re-raise wider, it seems to me 1) you end up laying odds instead of taking odds, with hands that are marginal favorites. 2) You weaken and narrow your calling range. Is this less of an issue because of flop changing hand values?

I concede there could be some advantages such as isolation, and shortening the stack depth if that favors your advantaged range.

Another way of wording my question could be, if you disallow that your opponents will fold too much, what is wrong with simply calling?

Point 1: Completely agree. If opponents are calling 4bets then value-raising to be ahead of their calling range makes sense, even if we fold to a jam.

Point 2: In many situations 3betting yields a higher ev even if flatting is also good. Probably because of fold equity, uncapped range, usually play the pot HU etc.

I wouldn't automatically call it bluffing for even the weaker hands. I would consider it semi-bluffing. For the stronger portion of your range, they can be considered value bets. If you barrel the turn with TPTK and fold to a shove, this doesn't mean you were bluffing. You thought you'd get called by worse, but only raised with better. Same principle applies preflop. If you 3-bet TT, but fold to a 4-bet, you wouldn't call your TT a bluff imo.

The two main reasons to bloat the pot are:
1. To build a bigger pot when you expect to win it.
2. To deny villain realizing his equity for free. (i.e. pick up the dead money before villain has a chance to make the best hand).

3-betting functions in the same way that open-raising or iso-raising works. If limping or calling won money, everyone would limp/call. But no one has ever won the blinds and antes by pressing CALL. You raise and re-raise with some hands, because it gives you an additional way to win, and (with some hands) it's the most profitable play.

I think you are misunderstanding what it means to turn your hand into a bluff. If you raise or reraise a value hand and enough worse hands will call, you are not bluffing.

Here's an example of turning your hand into a bluff.

In a 2/5 game with 1k stacks you open TT to 20 from the HJ. It folds to the SB who raises to 75. Folds to you. This is an easy call. Instead we raise to 275.

Now if the SB jams we have to fold if he is remotely typical of LLSNL players because his jamming range here is probably just KK+. Maybe QQ, maybe AK. We have 28.8% equity against a typical range:
KK+, QhQs, QcQs, AsKs, AhKh, AsKh, AsKc, AsKd (50% AKs combos 25% AKo combos 33% QQ combos). So a call would have EV = 1275*.288 - 725*.712 = -149 and therefore we have to fold.

Now villain might fold some hands like JJ, AQs, etc., as well as any light 3 bets.

So we are forcing villain to 5 bet a vastly superior range and to fold everything that isn't super premium. We have turned a highly profitable call into a bluff by 4 betting. And we say "turned into a bluff" because our hand is so far behind his continuing range. We have about the same equity with A5s and 76s (we actually have more equity with A5s and 76s vs TT if he never 5 bet jams AK). So our hand doesn't really matter here. Whether we have TT or 33 or AQ or 76s we don't have enough equity to call a 5 bet jam. They're all bluffs vs typical 5 bet jam ranges.

If you want to play a deceptive flatting game pre, it needs to close the action heads up. As others have mentioned, seeing a flop heads up is an important (albeit secondary) objective of raising. This is also the reason I will fold over MDF from the BB, even when it closes the action, if there is exactly two other players in the hand. Three is a crowd with marginal hands oop.

Note we can raise for value and fold to a reraise. Raising with the plan to fold does not automatically make our raise a bluff.

For instance same 2/5 game with 1k stacks. We are OTB with JJ. MP opens 20 one call we 80. Folds to MP who 300 and we decide his 4 bet range is too strong (maybe KK+ and sometimes JJ QQ and AK) and fold. This is fine because there are many more hands that will flat call our 3 bet, like JTs, KQo, 55, and 76s. We are far ahead of most of these hands so the 3 bet is mostly for value. Villain may raise/call 10% of his hands while only 4 betting 1% to 2% of his hands.

So here we are fine with raise/folding and it should normally be the most profitable move.

I just 4-bet/folded QQ in my last session. Some might say (on a forum for example) that I shouldn't have raised if I wasn't calling a 5-bet jam, and others might say "you turned queens into a bluff". Both are wrong. It's perfectly viable to raise/fold with a hand that has value as a raise, but no value when it gets re-raised.
It's just a bit of jargon that doesn't make much sense pre-flop. More commonly the phrase "turn it into a bluff" applies when you have hand that won't be profitable as a call, but might be more profitable as a raise, due to fold equity.

As Arty has pointed out, many combos are destined to be raise-folded. AQo is a prime example. Nobody ever turned AQo into a bluff by 3b and folding to a 4b. Flatting is no better, since you are capping yourself on A high boards.

Nearer to the end of the hand on later streets, raising a combo that should be a call can be a disaster. But that is still not turning anything into a bluff.

This whole jargon sounds pre 2012. Poker is beyond this by now. I would second guess any book or coach still using such terminology.

How can 4 bet / folding QQ have more value than calling the 3 bet? We may as well have any other hand worse than QQ in our opening range if the plan is raise/fold.

This isn't true if people are flatting 4 bets but where I play flatting a 4 bet with a worse hand is extremely rare. If someone flats a 4 bet it's often AA getting trappy. AK at the worst.

If villain can only raise or fold then 4 bet / folding QQ is terrible. We fold to 5 bets and villain folds hands like TT that we could have won a lot of money postflop on 9 high or lower boards.

Maybe I'm missing something.

I agree the jargon is a little clumsy but the point is not whether we call the 4 bet / fold "turning your hand into a bluff" but rather whether 4 bet / folding with a premium hand like QQ is more profitable than flatting the 3 bet.

If villain never calls 4bets then we need to make our 4bet size smaller until he does.

I use to 4-bet/fold QQ from EP as a standard. When flatted by 4-bets I didn't like that I only had 12 combos of pocket pairs (AA and KK) to deal with middling and low card boards. I'd get bluffed off my suited aces and AK. So I threw in QQ as a 4-bet bluff in the sense that I would fold to a 5-bet. I don't do this anymore, because now I'm usually flatting the 3-bet with QQ or 4-bet/calling.


Facing an aggressive 3-bettor that will call 4-bets liberally with suited aces, suited connectors and pocket pairs, but only jam AA it would make sense to 4-bet/fold QQ. I think it would be pretty rare to run into a player like this however. Players who call 4-bets loose tend to be the type to get it in looser as well. They tend to 5-bet suited aces AK and sometimes even as wide as AQ.

When you 4-bet QQ the pot gets so big it is hard to fold because of the possibility of AK. Even with JJ it would be hard to fold.

I was in a spot where I cold 4-bet in the BB vs an UTG open and an MP 3-bet. Villain(s) could flat in position with JJ/TT, AQs and AK. They could also fold some of their bluffs (like A5s) that have equity vs my queens, so the 4-bet prevents them from realizing equity. When they 5-bet jam they almost always have KK+ (it should really just be aces, in fact), and I don't have the price to call vs that range.

It's not a spot that comes up very often (the 3-bet/4-bet ranges in UTGvMPvBB are incredibly tight), which is why it seemed noteworthy to me. Prior to yesterday, I can't remember the last time I 4-bet/folded QQ.

Thanks for the explanation. So you had callers of the 3 bet? That's what it sounds like since you wrote "villain(s)" but you don't explicitly mention that so I'm uncertain.

I think I understand your example though. Thanks for the elaboration.

So it's possible 4 bet / folding a hand like QQ is correct, but most of the time I think we are "turning it into a bluff" for lack of better terminology, since we rarely get flat called by worse (so there is little value to the raise) and have to fold to 5 bets.

Related anecdote:

I had a hand in a 2/5 game where a LAG friend of mine opened in the CO to 20, I made it 60 OTB with AQo since his CO open range is like 45%, and he 4 bet to 275. We were about 1k effective. I told him I wasn't 3 betting him light and he said he wasn't 4 betting me light. I believed him and folded face up, and he showed JJ. I then told him that was actually pretty light since all my 5 bets will be better hands, and he just succeeds in getting me to fold worse hands and some flippy hands like AQ. I think I did use the phrase "you're turning your hand into a bluff" but I think it applies pretty well here. I'm never flat calling the 300 or jamming worse hands. He might as well have 22 or A5s or anything really. His response was that he needed to "define his hand". If he doesn't 4-bet and flat calls then he doesn't know where he stands post flop. This made little sense to me (I think primarily because when he 4 bets there will be no post flop game) but I wasn't sure exactly how to explain why he doesn't need to "define his hand."

you want to try to avoid inducing action if your objective is to fold when you get a result. While it’s true that you may change your mind over the course of the hand if events don’t pan out the way you expected them to, such a result is merely a revelation that you had the incorrect reads on your opponent the whole time. Since it’s not really possible for you to have a full soul read on your opponent pre-flop, changing the course of action by raising and folding is disastrous. If you don’t know your opponent well enough to have a proper 3bet and 4bet range versus him then you need to just be flatting at every opportunity.

Let's say you have AQ on the river, and the board is QJJT4. Your opponent bets, and you raise. This would be an example of turning a good hand into a bluff on the river. It's a bad idea because not many hands that beat you will fold, and hands that you beat won't call.

A bluff is placing a bet or raise with one of the worst possible hands you could logically hold.

Your example above is an example of range confusion, but not a bluff. The value hand is overplayed to be sure (extreme exploits notwithstanding). However, nothing was turned into anything else, and the combo is clearly not far enough down in range to be a bluff.

This is the problem with this ‘turn into a bluff’ jargon. If calling is clearly more +EV than raising, then taking the lesser EV line is just a mistake.

Now, if by complicated strategy such as a 4b pre this is basically the bottom of your range, then it would in fact be a bluff to raise AQ on that runnout. If that is your worst hand, and clearly it is not going to win by calling, it should be bluffed at a frequency that balances with your full houses and quads.

I think they intend to say "you've turned your into a bluff, and you're a very poor poker player for doing so". But it's pure intellectual laziness. The burden of proof is still on them to describe why the play is bad, what is better, and why. Sadly labels are typically used as an excuse to bypass that process.

Besides that I disagree with many of the posts here, except Arty is on the right track as usual. Bluffing doesn't need to be a weak hand. If you 3-bet queens, and someone 4-bets AK, you're both bluffing each other. Both are hoping for folds (or should be). Neither person would fold if they were aware the other person was bluffing.

To put it simply, bluffing is when you are trying to get better hands to fold. Value betting is when you want better hands to call or raise. Before the river, these hands aren't always pure. Sometimes they are mixed.

I've heard from somewhere that there are 3 reasons to bet: As a bluff, as a value bet, and to deny equity. Imo, that last one can be considered a bluff since you don't actually want a call even though you are sometimes betting with a better hand. I think on a technical level, every hand is a semi-bluff in some way, until you get to the river.

5-betting AK seems like that last one. You probably have the best hand, but you aren't super psyched about it getting called. I guess you could call it a bluff. It is more of a semi-bluff though.

@au4all:
I think when you are 3-betting queens you're for the most part wanting a call, sometimes even a 4-bet. A fold is usually the last thing I want to see out of the 3 options. Unless it is an EP raiser in which case I don't really want to see a 4-bet.

I think 4b/folding JJ can be a fine play. It's not 'turning into into a bluff', because nothing better folds (unless you'd fold QQ to his 4-bet). Most of the EV with the 4-bet with jacks comes from denying equity. (He made you fold AQ, which is flipping vs him, after all. Winning 100% of the pot when his hand only has about 57% equity is a good result). He might occasionally get some value if you sometimes call with AQs/AKo or TT, however.
Nevertheless, he has to consider that if he always folds to your 5-bets, and you make them at a reasonably high frequency, his 4-bet might be a mistake.
To "solve" the problem, he'd have to estimate the EV of flatting the 3-bet, and then compare it to the EV of 4-betting and potentially folding to a 5-bet. Only if flatting the 3-bet had a higher EV would 4-betting be a mistake.

A concept that's been coming up fairly often in this forum in recent times is that the terms "value-bet" and "bluff" don't make a whole lot of sense pre-flop. Hands get their EV from a mixture of hand equity and fold equity. Indeed, the bulk of the EV with mid-strength hands (let alone weak hands) comes from winning the dead money pre-flop without seeing a flop. If I 3-bet AK pre-flop for instance, I'm extremely happy if villain folds, and I don't care if he has AQ (a hand I'm crushing), T8s (a hand I have 60% equity against), or 44 (and hand that's actually beating me). I'm happy because I prevent those hands from realizing their equity... and I pick up about 4.5bb with no variance, which is more than AK makes on average. It doesn't really matter whether it was technically a value-raise, a bluff, or a raise for protection. I just want to maximize my EV.

If villain has a high 5bet frequency then the adjustment is to jam lighter, or 6bet if we're a million blinds deep. If I 4bet JJ and then fold to a 5bet it's not because I was bluffing, it's because I made a mistake thinking I was 4betting for value. Now if you accidentally flash JTs after 5betting then you better believe my next 4bet is 100% for value no matter what the outcome.

Herego you should probably already know this before you go 4bet folding anything. You shouldnt ever really be surprised if you get 5bet, so when it happens you were either 100% bluffing with a hand that stood no reasonable chance of winning or you are calling even if it seems light.

AQ is really the only flippy hand I fold here. KQs sometimes. Anything else I fold is way behind and anything I 5 bet way ahead or flippy. There are lots of worse hands than JJ I would 3 bet but none I would call a 4 bet with.

I think "sapping value from your hand" is more accurate than "turn into a bluff". It's just a lower EV line in this case to 4 bet JJ. The few times he gets a hand like AQ to fold are easily outclassed by when he has to fold to a shove or when he can't extract value with an overpair etc.

No, a bluff is a bet designed to fold out better hands. Your definition is unnecessarily restrictive.

All bets are *intended* to allow an opponent to make a mistake, which is sometimes folding the better hand. Sometimes the mistake is calling, and sometimes even calling with the better hand is a mistake, barring an actionable tell or read. Sometimes the mistake is raising, even though we then fold our bluffs and most of our value to the raise.