Played this hand in my last session - https://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/1...value-1836226/.

Short version - it was obvious that my table image apparently sucked. All my bets were getting called light by different opponents, and so I wasn't bluffing much, just running a non-stop shuttle bus to value-town. It helped that I was actually catching cards in this session, and didn't need to bluff much.

It sounds awesome, but it wasn't. There was a lot of variance from thinking my opponents were calling me down light again, when they were just slow-playing monsters. I started out stuck $700, then up $600, then down $400, then up $500, on and on and on, not being able to maintain consistent forward progress. Flopped sets getting sucked out on, running JJ into KK, having to fold good combo-draws on the turn when opponents check-raise-over-bet jam, top 2 getting counterfeited, etc.

Hand history - I started out with AA, 3B pre, c-bet flop, barreled turn, and value bet river when I made top set, but the last A also put three to a flush and three straight cards on board. V called and showed a rivered straight. Without really thinking about it, I rolled over my hand, letting the table see V sucked out on the river, rather than just mucking face down, and letting them wonder what I had.

Here's the question - if our opponents think we're bluffing too much, and are calling us down wider, is there a future-bluff value in showing some strong hands when we don't have to, in the hopes that when we do eventually go card-dead, we'll have rehabilitated our image enough to get some bluffs through? Or is it just a mistake to show opponents that we actually do have it a lot when we bet?

In another thread, @javanewt commented that she would prefer her opponents always think she has it. I kind of feel the same way, and would prefer opponents over-fold to my bluffs than over-call my value bets, if only because it allows us to play more hands with a higher EV, even though I know that most of our profit comes from value betting, not bluffing.

Whenever I have the opportunity to show I just squeezed with AK or KK, I do so. Then the next time I do it with KT, they'll think I have AA.

This is especially helpful if your playing somewhere where not too many people know you and it also works in reverse, such as on days I'm up several hundred bb's and for the next hour I'm just playing ABC/conservative, I'll show a bluff since the next time I make that play I'm probably gonna be nutted so it really depends on what your goals are for that session or against certain players.

At a high level, it seems to me that we want opponents to live in fear of contesting any pot against us. I'll show a bluff if it wins me a big pot, because I want opponents to fear playing big pots with me. I want them to remember I'm capable of seizing any opportunity to apply max pressure if they show the slightest hint of weakness.

If my bluffs are getting called too much, I'll show some thick value. But even when everyone is folding to my bluffs, I'll show thick value, thinking to myself, "yeah, that's right, keep folding every time I bet, you chumps."

But generally, I don't like showing bluffs, because I'd rather my opponents just over-fold. I'd rather show thick value I over-played, so that when I make that same play with a bluff, opponents will fold.

My question here comes from immediately thinking I made a mistake showing AA in the hand reviewed. My thinking at the time is that I had actually been catching good cards, reading my opponents really well, making good value bets, and just generally out-playing them, yet apparently they all thought I was a tilted maniac whose bets and raises deserved no respect at all.

My own thinking was thus divided. Part of me wanted them to fear my bets, so my bluffs get through, and showing AA helps support that. Part of me wanted them to continue thinking I was always FOS, so they keep calling me light, and showing AA hinders that. I'm not sure I got any value out of showing I bet AA the whole way when it also shows I went for thin value on a bad run-out.

There was another hand involving that same V - he opened EP to $25, grinder in CO calls, I 3B to $150 with KQcc on the BTN, and they both insta-call. I freaking 3B 6x, IP, and they both snap called. I c-bet 2/3 pot on a flop of Qd6c4c, and they both folded.

After CO folded, V cried out, saying he'd have x/r-jammed on me if CO wasn't in the hand. He emphasized that it was ON ME. When I asked him what he was jamming with, and what he thought I had, he said he didn't care what I had. He had so little respect for me betting 2/3 pot, yet somehow feared the guy to my right who double-flatted pre and checked behind him on that Q-high, raggedy board.

I had TP2K with the 2nd nut flush draw, and another guy who wasn't in the hand was like, "I guarantee you had no better than a middling pair there." I've never played so well yet somehow had such a trashy table image. It was bizarre.

Short answer: Never give information for free. Showing for sympathy is not worth the info. What if one of the regs you play with multiple times a week was studying your live tells and really wants to see? Or another guy noticed your sizing tells and needs to confirm?

Honestly this sounds like a whole lot of nonsense based on a whole lot of nothing.

Never show your hands if you don't have to is the answer.

Just mute playbig

At your level, that's probably best.

Always show every hand.
Why?
Because it confuses your opponents.

I think in general you should go with whatever table image you naturally get, and then try to push it even further in the same direction. If people already think you're bluffy, you shouldn't be bluffing much, but if you do manage to get a good one through, you may want to show the bluff. If they start thinking you always have it, you may want to show an uncalled value bet. But then start bluffing more than you typically would.

Information is power and opponents will use that information to beat you. Dnegs latest vid, and he's pretty good despite all the haters, sez everything you do at the table conveys information. Top players don't give out free info.

Anybody that talks like this, shouldn't be commenting on anyone's level. You sound like you started playing a month ago yet you joined in 2008.

It's a no brainer and people thinking it does something for their image are stupid.

And you sound like a child!

Good one grandpa.

You got me confused with someone else my man.

Well this thread escalated quickly.


For OP:

I've probably shown cards more than any casino reg. ... way more than anyone would recommend. My guess is that you showing or not didn't affect much.

A few random thoughts:

1. People are terrible with randomness in general. This affects everything, but in this case showing or not and you having a hand or not.

2. People don't pay attention and often don't remember things, even when $100s are on the line. So very likely they'll have forgotten you showed AA or whatever even 20 minutes later.

3. Like gambler's fallacy even if people remember what you showed they'll interpret it differently, where some will assume you have it again and others that you won't have it now because you had it before. As though it's "impossible" to have AA twice (kind of a repeat of #1).

4. People gain way less information from you showing than everyone thinks IMNSHO. Live tells just aren't that big, esp. at 2-5 stakes. Like if they were really that useful the best players would just pay you off all the time when you first played against them and then just destroy you after ... if anything most 2-5 regs. will lean the other way and only start paying you off when they are sure you could be bluffing, or will just bluff/overvalue hands vs. unknowns all the time (or they just can't help themselves and do it against everyone).

Yeah, I have a way of bringing people together like that.

I appreciate the thoughtful response.

It reminds me of something Mike Caro said in one of his books, about always showing anytime anyone asked. I too don't generally worry too much about how much info I'm giving away in live low-stakes games, just by showing one or two hands I didn't have to, out of 200 dealt in an 8 hour session. If anything, I try to be strategic about showing hands, to reinforce the table image I want to cultivate.

Though at the same time, I do take note of what other players are doing, and have found it profitable to make plays using that info. It's shocking sometimes, how reliable some of my live reads can be, after only observing someone for a short while. So I can't help but wonder how closely my opponents are observing me and what I'm doing.

It's not that I'm not overly worried about verbal or physical tells. But I do worry that opponents may notice my tendencies as a player, developing their live reads on me.

Like, in this session, it was insanely obvious that half my opponents were giving my bets and raises no respect at all. Ordinarily I wouldn't spend any time thinking about the effect of showing a value hand that I bet for value, including pretty thin value on the river. This time, I was kind of angry at myself for allowing my frustration at V's dumb luck to show through.

In my head, "You idiot. This clown just chased a straight on a two-flush board, with no flush draw, paying you off on every street, even snapping you off when the flush comes in, and you got to see he raised pre from EP with KT when he fast-rolled his hand. Why in the f**k are you showing everyone you had AA, bet it the whole way, and even tried to milk this wingnut for a little extra value instead of checking back top set when every draw possible got there? Everyone would have assumed you were bluffing or betting a lot worse for value if you just mucked your hand."

I couldn't help thinking showing that hand cost me some value in later pots. Didn't seem like it helped me get any bluffs through.