MovieFX said
Oh I meant to reply to your question about my thinking regarding my hand and V’s range when I float here. First, my hand is definitely just a bluff-catcher. Usually I am just set-mining and folding the flop, but here I ended up in position and the flop is fairly dry. That is why I decided to float and see if I could take the pot. I’m playing position more than my hand.

I’m afraid this is going to sound mean, but I really am just trying to be blunt in order to help you see where you need to improve:this doesn’t make any sense. You say your hand is a bluff-catcher, then in the next breath you are talking about trying to bluff with it. Or are you? You talk a lot about what you think you are representing, but never about a bluff target – what are the hands you are trying to make your opponent fold? Why are you choosing this hand to bluff with? Being in position doesn’t mean you can just take a pot whenever you want it – your cards are supposed to matter.

MovieFX said

Foucault said

I’m afraid this is going to sound mean, but I really am just trying to be blunt in order to help you see where you need to improve:this doesn’t make any sense. You say your hand is a bluff-catcher, then in the next breath you are talking about trying to bluff with it. Or are you? 

Not blunt at all! (Plus I listen to the pod cast constantly so I can hear it in your voice). I really appreciate your (and all other) replies. I definitely go into the tank when trying to reply. The more surprised I am by something I read the more likely it is that that is the point I most need to explore.

I do feel like I am struggling to post effectively as a new member, picking up lingo in passing like the new kid on the playground. I’ll keep trying though.

I might be misusing the term “bluff-catcher”. I was just trying to say that I don’t think my hand is beating any “made” hands that bet the flop. I was using “bluff catcher” as a way to describe the relative strength of my actual cards, which we agree isn’t much. 

I am definitely bluffing the turn in this hand, testing to see if V gave up after 1 barrel. 

I think you should watch or re-watch my theory series on bluffing. When you describe your hand as a “bluff-catcher”, that suggests that it has showdown value and that you are calling the flop thinking that you will at showdown often enough to show a profit (which I doubt, because of course sometimes V will have you drawing to two outs, and even when he doesn’t he usually has two overcards, possible some other draw, and may keep barreling). But I think that’s inconsistent with then turning your hand into a bluff on the next street. 

Foucault said

You talk a lot about what you think you are representing, but never about a bluff target – what are the hands you are trying to make your opponent fold? 

I was attempting to communicate this at the end of my post, “AT, AJ, AK and a bunch of broadway and suited combinations” are the hands that I was expecting to fold to my bluff. Basically c-bets with air. I was expecting any Q or 77+ to call and maybe some second-pairs. I expect Qs or boats to re-raise, call and bet the river or call and check-trap on the river. 

This is one of the reasons your hand is poor for bluffing: the hands V will fold are hands you are are already beating! Of course there’s still some value to making those hands fold, but not nearly as much as value as there is in making V fold hands that are favorites to win the pot. And you have to weigh the modest value in getting folds from overcards against the risk of putting in a bet against better hands when you are drawing virtually dead (this is the other problem with using 44 as a bluff – it has virtually no equity when called).

Foucault said

Why are you choosing this hand to bluff with? Being in position doesn’t mean you can just take a pot whenever you want it – your cards are supposed to matter.

I don’t know the best way to ask this…. do my cards need to matter if my story makes sense? I mean, I’m not 3-betting pre-flop with 73o with the plan to barrel V into submission with pure aggression, so I agree that cards definitely matter, but at some point we play other factors right? I feel I played this the way I’d play a hand like 88-TT (I will even bet the turn with a Q sometimes). Granted, I have no reason to think V doesn’t have a Q, which makes this risky, but isn’t the flop texture important here? In my mind he either has to have a Q or a good pair to call my turn bet. (I doubt he has second-pair in his range opening EP unless he is playing hands like 67s.) Considering V was c-betting 75% of the time and a lot of people do it more, isn’t it worth making an attempt to steal with pure position some % of the time if the situation feels right? In this particular hand, if V didn’t have a Q on the flop than the turn made it even less likely. If V has no Q and is thinking the same thing, he still has to call, out of position, facing another bet on the river. 

Does this give you some more ammo to help me see your point of view more clearly? In reality, as I go through the thinking required to post this, I’m feeling it is all pretty thin and I could have avoided the hand, looking for a better spot. This is probably the tip of a leak-iceberg. However, since similar situations come up I wanted to continue here to see if more value can be squeezed from this post. In other words, please don’t read any of this as close-minded-defensiveness. Instead this is open-minded-defensiveness.

 

I address a lot of this in my bluffing series so don’t want to repeat that too much here. The short answer is that it’s a combination: some spots are better for bluffing than others, and in those better spots your cards matter less, but it’s rare that they don’t matter at all. It’s easy to write an EV equation for bluffing:

Fold Equity + Showdown Equity = (%Fold * Pot) + %Called * (Equity * Pot when called) – (%Raised * Size of Bet)

The problem with bluffing with 44 is that that second term is virtually 0, which means that you need V to fold REALLY, REALLY often to show a profit. Your “story” isn’t as important as you think. People are mostly going to call or fold based on the cards they have, not what they think of you. If V has a pair, he probably calls, and if not, he probably folds. 

The other problem is that even if the EV of betting is greater than 0, it still may not be greater than the EV of checking. That’s because of what I said before: even when Villain folds and you win the pot, your mostly winning pots that you were going to win anyway, even if you checked.