Comments on: Deep Bluff https://www.thinkingpoker.net/2010/07/deep-bluff/ Weekly poker podcast hosted by Andrew Brokos and Nate Meyvis featuring interviews with famous and behind-the-scenes figures from the poker world as well as an in-depth poker strategy segment. Fri, 23 Jul 2010 04:28:57 +0000 hourly 1 https://wordpress.org/?v=7.0 By: Drew https://www.thinkingpoker.net/2010/07/deep-bluff/#comment-5472 Fri, 23 Jul 2010 04:28:57 +0000 http://www.thinkingpoker.net/?p=5704#comment-5472 In reply to Shawn.

Yeah it was apparent by the river/turn, but what about the flop? Foucault could continue with the bluff on the turn because of flop play, right? And he deduced that villain doesn’t c/r a gutshot + overs, and I was wondering what line of thought concluded that.

]]> By: Shawn https://www.thinkingpoker.net/2010/07/deep-bluff/#comment-5465 Thu, 22 Jul 2010 05:00:35 +0000 http://www.thinkingpoker.net/?p=5704#comment-5465 In reply to Drew.

I think villain misses value on the river with 97hh by not leading. Also I’m not sure villain flats turn with the second nuts drawing to possibly a good flush.

You’d think he’d raise turn because if he gets to the river he’s still first to act and a lot of cards could kill his action.

]]> By: Drew https://www.thinkingpoker.net/2010/07/deep-bluff/#comment-5464 Thu, 22 Jul 2010 04:49:06 +0000 http://www.thinkingpoker.net/?p=5704#comment-5464 on the flop, i mean.

]]> By: Drew https://www.thinkingpoker.net/2010/07/deep-bluff/#comment-5463 Thu, 22 Jul 2010 04:48:37 +0000 http://www.thinkingpoker.net/?p=5704#comment-5463 Why do you not credit him with say, 97hh? Isn’t it somewhat common to c/r a gutshot + overcards on the flop? Or is the read player specific?

]]> By: Kenny https://www.thinkingpoker.net/2010/07/deep-bluff/#comment-5456 Wed, 21 Jul 2010 19:58:38 +0000 http://www.thinkingpoker.net/?p=5704#comment-5456 Well played. I think what made this work is how “unorthodox” it seemed to the villain.It gave the appearance that the hero’s hand was very strong. “Standard poker logic” would tell you not too get too crazy with a big bluff out of position. It would also tell you that raising/calling big bets on a scary board like this is not a great idea. I think this is why the bluff worked. Even if villain had a strong hand like 2 pair, he would have a hard time not giving you credit for the straight, after action on every street, and then the river all in.

Did you ever find out what the villain had? My guess was a small pair with a backdoor flush draw like Ah5h or Kh5h.

]]> By: Shawn https://www.thinkingpoker.net/2010/07/deep-bluff/#comment-5455 Wed, 21 Jul 2010 15:48:25 +0000 http://www.thinkingpoker.net/?p=5704#comment-5455 I can’t see the suits at work but it sounds like there is a Heart draw out there. Is it a really small part of your range to have say K2 or A2 of hearts?

]]> By: jordan https://www.thinkingpoker.net/2010/07/deep-bluff/#comment-5432 Tue, 20 Jul 2010 18:20:45 +0000 http://www.thinkingpoker.net/?p=5704#comment-5432 are you saying you think he will c/c with k7 or 75? or donking them?

]]> By: Chris M https://www.thinkingpoker.net/2010/07/deep-bluff/#comment-5430 Tue, 20 Jul 2010 17:17:04 +0000 http://www.thinkingpoker.net/?p=5704#comment-5430 Interesting hand.

I’d always be worried about bluffing into the nuts here but you made good arguments for why that’s unlikely to happen.

]]>