Still doesnt make sense. If you think they are weak, then your hand has SDV. A semi bluff would be more of a OESD + FD or something along those lines where you are folding out a lot of better hands, doesnt have SDV unimproved, but has a lot of equity when called.

You think I'm winning this hand with a pair of 6s very often? I was also worried that if I check the turn, someone else could easily bet the same $70 that I bet and then I fold have to fold.

I disagree the turn bet is spew. 8x can easily fold here considering the fact it was a multiway limped pot. Any conservative player is going to get uncomfrortable calling big bets with their "top pair" of 8's knowing they could easily be drawing dead already. It also gets other villains to fold their equity with combo draw and middle pair type hands that can improve to 2pair. Plus, any hands that do call and check the river are capped to a weak range and we can successfully bluff most rivers.

Yes, getting check-raised would be a disaster, but any decent player should have bet their sets and 2pairs on the turn. The fact that we are up against the types of players who are MUBSY enough not bet 2-pair or check-raise, means we need to look for spots to steal from these guys. The turn was a good spot for that.

lol first time I've ever heard MUBSY

If this turns into a winrate discussion, I'm going to lock the thread.

Haven't read other reponses yet.

This bluff will work if V has a flush draw but then you are frequently ahead with your A-high anyway.

It will often fail when V has a reasonable 8 or 99+ . It will fail because your flop call looks like you're drawing at a flush and your turn bet therefore looks like a cheap stab at the pot and river looks like more of the same. I've been called by pairs below top pair when I've used this line before. Multiway most players are raising their sets on two tone flops so the call flop, bet turn line is rarely a monster hand in my experience.

I think after V calls the turn bet I'd shut down mostly. I'd maybe prefer raising the flop to give myself the option of a triple barrel bluff. Also raising the flop likely buys you a free card going to the river assuming you only get called by OOP players. The flop raise is potentially a cheaper way to draw than calling the flop bet and then facing a bigger bet on the turn.

It appears that you benefited from exploiting a recreational players inability to hand read. Most level 2 players that were paying attention would have played this exactly as the Villain did and called the river.

I don't necessarily agree that a bluff must be orchestrated from the beginning of the hand but your story must make sense. Your story doesn't make sense here.

Why would you have to fold? If I did my math right you would be getting 2.5:1 and only need to improve 28% of the time and with the NFD and the 6+A as potential outs you should have good enough odds.

I am not saying you may win the hand with a pair of 6s, but you are not getting villains to fold 8x on the turn, thus your turn bet is bad into 3 other people.

^ Why are you so convinced that V's would not fold 8x?

With these effective stack sizes, if V calls on the turn then they know they are setting themselves up for commitment on the river. Most abc's realize that unless they make trips or 2pair, they are going to hate pretty much every single river card that comes since it will either put out an overcard, a straight card, or a flush card. Unless I had a game flow read where someone was on tilt and willing to donk off their stack with top pair, I would fire the turn every time here

A lot of villains thinking ITT at 1/2. They have TP, they wont fold. Maybe HU I could see betting this turn, but getting 3 people to potentially fold better seems very ambitious

Lol, now I see V took a x/c x/f line turn/river with top two; yes this bluff is fine against this guy alone but not vs 3 players.

I still think I liike raising the flop better in general even if that would have failed miserably in this spot vs the V with his exact hand if he calls the flop raise.

At 1/2 I'm getting folds from 1-pair hands when I raise the flop multiway, at least from "semi competent" regs.

What I'm saying is not stupid. I'm sorry you don't see it

I hate to come over this subject for the 3rd time but it somehow becomes important for other folks that follows the thread and would like to know details of a perfect pro bluff.

I'm not gonna go back of my last two posts but I want to comment on the money involved in that hand.

First: Villain made a mistake when he called your turn bet of $70 and folded on the river against a relatively small and weak river bluff. This alone was you luck.
Second: The effective stacks were $300 and by the river villain have invested $100 ($5 pre, $25 flop, $70 turn) or 33% of effective. He should have called the river for $125 into a $370 pot. You made a mistake on planing the bluff but villain was not skilled enough to see it.

The bottom line is that we should now to plan and build a believable story so villain is deterred to call based on my 6 points of that list. That's a professional well worked bluff, that will succeed much more then your desperation bluffs. (oh, by the way: the difference between the flops+turn bets and river bet has got to be substantial to have a frighting effect on villain's brain)

Note:
frighting = a sudden intense feeling of fear
an experience that causes one to feel sudden intense fear, a nasty feeling.
Betting:
$15 pre, $20 flop, $25 turn and $175 to $200 river. This shows that you want to commit and will call a shove while he's not yet committed and it makes no sense for him to call with so small investment by the river.

Got it?.

Mamarolex is right here. I'm probably guilty of building pots too big and too early and then having to cancel the third barrel when I realise too late that V has passed committment threshold. My raise flop plan is going to lead to too big a pot on river if V doesn't fold flop or turn for instance.

However, if you know your opponent can and frequently will find folds despite being in some sense committed by stack to pot ratios then you actually make more profit by building a bigger pot before taking it away.

I think the hand you're representing has a lot to do with bet sizing too. A small bet on flop and turn followed by a big bet on river looks like you are keeping it cheap to draw therefore an obvious draw has to come in on river before you launch the big bluff.

The advantage of building the pot earlier is that you represent a wider value range. You can have anything from an over pair, 2pairs, a set, a monster draw right up to the nuts. It's easier for V to fold early too which can make for cheaper bluffing.

I guess it is a situational thing whether you go for an early take down or plan on only bringing out the big bets late in the hand.

For the record, this is 2/5, not 1/2

That's a 2-5 with short stacks? The effective stacks are just $300. In that game a bluff will almost never work. You got lucky this time but overall in short stacks and fish games, bluffs are useless.

I'm just give you the Golden Bridge for your future actions that puts money in your pocket. That's all I'm doing.

"Not a Step Back" and that's an order
uncle Joseph

Against this villain, it was a great spot to bluff as you folded out his two pair hand.

That said in general, in my experience playing 2/5, the 'average' rec V would be check-calling this river with 86 for this size bet. He might fold some one-pair hands, and I don't hate the bluff but its not like the absolute best spot. I prefer bluff lines on less obvious draw boards. Even the lowest-level thinking Vs in 2/5 can say "the flush draw missed and I have 2P, I callz". Typically the best bluffs leave the V saying "what else could you possibly have but __". In this case, he's more saying "so you're telling me you have a 4?"

P.S. anyone that says that you need to plan out every bluff pre-flop, which implies that you can't turn your hand into a bluff on later streets, based specific run-out, and/or based solely on V's action and tells both (a) lacks creativity and (b) has a significant leak in his/her game. There are some good points weaved into those rules (don't bluff someone on tilt, don't bluff someone who is 'pot committed', don't bluff a fish) but the overall premise was asinine.

W1ngGG, yes there are spots you can bluff with no prior planning on previous streets. I tend to find they are mainly one street stabs at orphan pots though. I think any multi street bluff requires at least some thought to the overall line. However, I don't think anyone is saying you have to have a complete and rigid plan from preflop. How could that ever work? Preflop it is enough to answer:

A) what combination of value and fold equity do I need vs this opponent with this hand to make it profitable overall?

B) what situations postflop are going to give me the value I need?

C) what situations postflop are going to get me the folds I need?

Once you get to see the flop you can make a plan for your betting line but it is still not going to be rigid because you'll have to account for many possible turn and river cards AND villain's possible reactions to flop turn and river cards and your various possible lines.

That planning doesn't mean you can't take advantage of an "unexpected" turn or rive card or villain reaction. Far from it, by planning ahead you reduce the number of unexpected events and reduce the frequency with which you have to wing it.

By planning what you'll do on different cards in advance you can ensure that you actually make use of all the opportunities that present themselves.

Also by thinking ahead you avoid leaping at the wrong "opportunities" such as reflexively betting cards that don't actually fit the range a thinking opponent has put you on given your actions thus far.

Not saying I do all this all the time of course! I make more than my fair share of terribly planned bluffs and value bets and my game suffers accordingly

Can you just move the whole thread to WR thread?


I think against some players it doesn't even matter if the bluff makes sense. There are some that I will bluff almost every scary card regardless if it makes any sense that I got there or not because all they see is the scary card. This so one f those players it seems.

This is 100% consistent what I said, except you took extra words to do it and made no incremental relevant points. Of course we need a plan for our hand and future streets - but that plan should be fluid based on the combination of board run out and Vs actions. It's like you read my point, agreed with it, but then elaborated on it in a tone that suggests I don't understand these really basic fundamental concepts.

Also - pots don't need to be orphaned at all to turn your hand into a bluff. I profitably mix in floating the flop in position a decent percentage of the time when I rep a credible hand and V is likely to be polarized, particularly if I have any backdoor draws. Here's an example - I have 56s in a raised pot on a A2T board with one spade. Vs the right player I might call a flop c-bet in position with the intention of repping that I flatted with an ace, knowing I can fold out any pocket pairs and air on the turn or river. If the turn is another A, I'm actually less likely to bluff Bc V might view that as less likely I have an A. If V checks a blank turn, I'm barreling turn with the intention of barreling all rivers. If V leads the turn, I'm raising if I drew a second spade or a T peels, and folding everything else. My rationale is V would expect me to flat a turn bet with an ace if he barrels so a raise on a blank turn looks polarized. If I raise turn I'm likely bombing all rivers except an A. If V raises me back at any point in the hand Or if V gives off some major live tell - I may adjust my plan going forward. It's fluid, but that doesn't mean it's not well thought out. Note that in many cases this is a multi-street bluff in a non-orphaned pot, planned on the flop and not one second before.

I am routinely doing this in every hand I get into. I don't often choose to go with creative lines like this but I stand by my contention that anyone that isn't assessing the possibility of doing so has a leak and shouldn't be giving "bluffing like a pro" advice.

W1ngGG, apologies, I had no intention of sounding critical or condescending. I merely thought you had misunderstood my position so I expanded on it to aid understanding for yourself and others. Personally I think my points are all excellent and I make no apologies for my lack of brevity, that's just how I roll, slowly

<3 no problem here just wanted to add some color to my point since thread read like I was a dumbass (maybe true )

I have not seen this mentioned yet, but I think the biggest reason the turn bet is bad is not anything to do with the original Villain, but instead it's because you have 2 guys behind you either of whom could have just turned the nuts (54 is the next-most obvious draw besides yours) and you bet before they acted, so they could easily raise you. It does make your bet look a lot stronger if they don't have anything, but those times you run into the nuts you're not going to be happy.