Not to get too far into this, but I didn't say that the overbet was more of a bluff because it is a bigger bet, it is just likely folding out more hands here than a 2/3 pot bet. Its about how villain's calling range changes due to the betsizing. The debate here is around how that range changes, and whether it changes in such a manner that Hero's line is correct.

I don't think anyone is saying this bet is a bluff to fold out better hands. But unless I'm wildly mistaken, "turning your hand into a bluff" can happen when you play a hand with some value in a way that all worse hands end up folding, and you're not playing it in a manner that is getting value. I think Hero is *unintentionally* doing that in this hand. I.e. on a K-Q-J-10-8 board, shoving AI with a 9 on the river might be called "turning your hand into a bluff" because you end up folding out every worse hand, and only getting called by Broadway. The fact the bet doesn't have any chance of folding out a worse hand doesn't stop people from saying you turned your hand into a bluff.

Thats not to say that such a bet also couldn't be referred to as a good value bet, against a different opponent. Isn't it fair to say the same bet against two opponents could be a bluff in one situation, and a value bet in another, regardless of Hero's intent? I don't think Hero has to mean for it to be a bluff for it to be so, which is where we seem to disagree.

The fact it isn't folding out better hands just means its not a good bluff. I'm not saying it was Hero's intent to bluff, but as a function of what a lot of villain's are going to call the turn bet with, it might as well be a bluff the way its played. I don't think Hero is bluffing, I think Hero turned his hand into a bluff.

I'm not sure why your assuming I don't have a good grasp of what a bluff means? I don't see any reason to nitpick this one issue?

Just my opinion on the hand, I'd rather play J10 like this than AQ, precisely because the turn overbet folds out Qx quite often. Anyway this is a massive derail, and results already posted. I've misused words before and I'll misuse them again, so if we can't agree I'm happy if we both move on.

You're mistaken.

"Turning your hand into a bluff" is when you play a hand with decent showdown value in a way that some better hands may fold. It is impossible to turn your hand into a bluff if you know ahead of time that any hand in villain's range that beats you will never fold. Given description of hero and villain, hero knows 100% that AQ+ is never folding.

Overbetting a monster so that more hands fold is not turning your hand into a bluff.

Just because you're folding out more bad hands in your villain's range, doesn't mean that you're turning your hand into a bluff. It just means that your line is losing value from those hands. Hopefully that's value that you're recouping in other ways through the move (i.e. looking spazzy and getting called light, building image, whatever.)

In this case, hero was trying to LOOK like he was bluffing or "turning a made hand into a bluff, but he was actually overbetting for value.

The very best hand that that hero might be able to turn into a bluff here is something like JJ, imo.

There are many situations for shoving a 9 on your K-Q-J-10-8 example.

The only time it is "turning your hand into a bluff" is if you're trying to get another 9 to fold.

If you don't think your opponent has a 9, every other legitimate reason to bet any amount (whether it's min-bet or all-in) is for value. That is not to say that all-in is the most +EV choice in many situations.

Ugh, I don't know why I'm pursuing this, but since your still arguing the semantics, and I know how the phrase "turn your hand into a bluff" is used and I feel like your talking down to me by the tone of your posts; I'll make my last point.

You're obviously missing the point by the fact your debating the strategic merits of my KQJ108 example. I'm not offering any opinion on whether a bet is good/bad there, merely giving a situation where the phrase "turning your hand into a bluff" is used. Your looking for arguments out of me I'm not making.

It is indeed common parlance to use the phrase "turn your hand into a bluff" in the way I'm using it; where you play a hand in such a way that all worse hands fold and all better ones call. Clearly this is distinctly not a good "bluff", which is used to actually get better ones to fold. The phrases have very different meanings/usages. From your post I gather you don't think anyone can "turn their hand into a bluff" unintentionally, because intent is necessary?

Just to be quick, I googled "turning your hand into a bluff" and clicked the first link...

http://www.pokerlistings.com/strateg...d-into-a-bluff
"Everyone folds and he proudly turns over pocket aces. Successfully trapped the field, right?

Wrong. What he did was he turned his pocket aces into a bluff. No worse hand will ever call the check-raise and no better hand is ever going to fold. So effectively his AA is just as good as say five-high."

That is literally the exact same way I've used the term. I've been very consistent in my posts that I believed the way Hero played the hand he is often getting all worse hands to fold and better ones to call; therefore I used the term "turned his hand into a bluff". I agreed that against certain villains Hero's line will indeed work, but the judgment on that is so villain dependent I think Hero is really the only one able to have enough information to make that decision.

Utterly outside the strategy discussion, I'm not sure why you are so strongly objecting to what is a common usage of the term. "Turning your hand into a bluff" doesn't have at all the same meaning as "bluffing". It also doesn't mean its a smart/successful bluff, or require any intent, both of which you seem to require. You can disagree whether Hero was indeed doing that, which is great/the point of the thread, but why you are attacking my usage of the term is beyond me at this point. People can hold different views on the term, but I'm absolutely not alone in using it like that.

Wrote up a longish post responding to this, but it accidently got deleted. As I was writing CLorox responded and I pretty much agree with everything he said.

Hmm.. I think Clorox is totally missing my point, so I'm actually curious as to what your response was (see ^^^ post).

LOL at that article. The author obviously doesn't understand the term, or the correct application of the move.

I'm glad people read (and cite) that garbage; poker will always be profitable.

Here's the funniest part of the entire article:

When you're playing No-Limit Hold'em, you must realize turning a hand with good showdown value into a complete bluff is a grievous error that must be avoided at all costs.

Luckily for you, it is easy to avoid.

If you ask yourself, "Am I raising for value or to get a better hand to fold?" before you act, you'll usually be able to avoid these troublesome situations altogether!

So much for all the theory around merged ranges!

Guess it helps to play in games where people are only calling you down with the nuts, I suppose. In that case, the correct adjustment is to become a maniac until they'll call you with something worse than trips on a paired board.

Clorox, nobody is advocating the idea that turning AQ into a bluff in this spot is a good/effective idea, or that any better hand would ever fold. I posted the link to point out that your rejection of how "turning your hand into a bluff" is used as a term isn't in universal agreement.

Citing that article didn't help your case for changing the definition. . . .

The guy was clueless, and obviously writing for an audience that is prone to shoving AA on a KK5 board vs. opponents who will lay down QQ 100% of the time and call K2 100% of the time. That's not turning your hand into a bluff; that's just brainless.

His article is a parable on how "turning your hand into a bluff" is a horrible move. In actuality, done correctly, it's a valuable tool and an indicator of an advanced player.

Give me your definition of what a bluff is and we can start from there. I think this is where your miscommunication is coming from.

People use the phrase "he turned his hand into a bluff" with negative connotations to mean "he might as well have had a bluff because of how he played the hand" in instances where they think the Hero screwed himself by making all worse hands fold, in essence "making your hand have as much value at showdown as a bluff when you get called". Do you disagree with that?

Clearly that phrase and just the word "bluff" are very different, and I'm not saying Hero is bluffing here.

but it has 2 picture of Jamie Gold. He is the best bluffer in poker...must be legit

I used the term exactly as riza used it.

Ummm. . . ok?

Hero in hand is not bluffing regardless of it being intentional or accidental.

When OP shoves on turn with AQ obviously there are 2 results in that opponent will fold or call. In order for this shove to be a bluff is has to obtain more value by folding out hands with equity advantage than it does by gaining value over hands in which AQ is ahead of at the time(regardless of whether the inferior hand calls or folds). It is basically a math problem that can be solved given assumed hand ranges and how they react to the bet.

Since you would be very hard pressed to argue that opponent will fold AQ, trips, and overpairs to that shove and he could sometimes call with worse it cannot be a bluff.

When bad player accidently "turn their hands into bluffs" what they are doing is incorrectly analyzing their opponents hand range and how that will react to a bet.

i think what you are actually trying to argue but are wording it wrong is his bet does not obtain the most value and a smaller bet would be a better value bet.

It's a bluff line taken for value.

In this context, in this particular situation, this isn't accurate.
Usually this is the case, of course, but vs. this V, with this history, it's the opposite, and thats why i made the play.
If i bet 2/3 pot, he's folding AK, ...not to get results oriented, but you know what i mean. he knows enough about poker to know the stacks are too shallow, that he can't make a move on me here, w/ my line, and my image of him. the most EV play to me was to go for a hero call.
the overbet lured him in.
i gave him a chance to make a mistake, to try to outplay me.
I know he's capable of calling me super-thin,and it would be worth it to his while to gamble that he's right, and he can show off to the gallery when AK hi is good.
I put him on a slightly stronger hand, but AK is the equivalent of 55-88
here.

It gets called a LOT wider in this context/history w/ V.

not saying your wrong, about your reasoning, in general, very solid.

I'm shocked this hand is getting any discussion at all, it's so damn standard.

still perplexed as to the discussions about bluffs/ turning a made hand into a bluff?

wat??

wats the difference between betting pot, and all in in this (yawn) hand?

I think if you go all in your repping trips or a fullhouse. If you bet pot your repping a queen or an overpair.

no, betting pot is repping what i have, AI is repping JT/ T8 type hand vs. this V
at least thats what i was going for.
not a standard V at all, which makes the hand seem non-standard, which it is,
in this context, with this V, and with our past history over several years.
make sense??
and, my hand is the nuts, here, relative to Vs rang, at least in my mind. its really no different than AA/KK.
if my read was off, and he shows up w/ a 9, then have a nice day, and rebuy.