When Was The Last Time You Three-Barrel Bluffed?

Arrrg. I had a hand last night that I should have fired multiple times.

NL100 – 6 max

Aggressive villain with stack of $450. I have $300. We’re deep.

2 limpers to him, he raises to 5.50. I know his range is huge and it’s a position raise. I repop to $20 with Ts3s. He calls. Doh.

Flop is K4x with 2 hearts. He checks, I c-bet $35 or $40, he calls. Pot is now officially big, around $120 or so.

He calls a lot and has been running great. I don’t think he has much of a hand, but I don’t know if I can push him off. I certainly can’t push him off a K.

Turn blank. He checks. I chicken out and check.

River is a 3rd heart. He checks. I type in $75 or $80, think for a bit and lose heart again. I check behind.

He shows me Ac4c. I feel weak.

I like the idea of trying some new stuff out at lower limits. The only “problem” is that the limits can play a little differently, but I don’t think it would be enough differently to take away the value of doing this.

I have been trying to take my hand reading to a new level to find plays like this. I generally tend to make these plays at all the wrong times and in doing so donate some money.

Thanks for giving me something else to take a look at.

While I like the idea of moving to lower levels to stretch my normally tight style, I’ve found that the environment changes sometimes pretty dramatically if you go much lower than what you’re accustomed to playing.

Be that as it may, I’ll “triple threat” if I’ve firmly established a very consistently tight table image and have caught a nice run of wins at showdown within the last orbit or so. I’ve found it to be a very effective play under those conditions. At the wrong time, there’s always some guy there who’s just tickled that I’m making his bets for him and building his stack. In fact, I always hope to be that guy when I’ve caught a quad on the flop and checked for the setup.

So, when was the last time? I had two triple threat bluffs go wrong on me last week, costing me almost two full buy-ins, so I took a break from it until tonight. The board flopped three to a royal with me in the big blind, so I charged at it and luckily but as I’d intended isolated one player who had been aggressively bluffing all night. I crossed my fingers and went for it just because of today’s article and the fact that I’d already taken some nice pots from the guy without returning any. The river was the fourth to the royal, and the regular bluffer made a big bet. Having already fired three barrels and now going for the fourth, I raised enough to put him all-in. After hesitating long enough to raise my blood pressure to dangerous levels, he folded.

After that blood pressure event, it’s likely going to be a while before I try again.

I know this post is about pulling yourself out of your comfort zone and is not specific to 3 barrell bluffing but I used to 3 barrell bluff quite regularly and it was quite often the reason for a losing session! Playing online I was up against different players nightly so it’s not that I had a reputation for it but whenever I tried it I got stacked. I am not exagerrating here but I can’t actually remember a time it ever worked in a raised pot playing, 50c – $1 online. It obviously must work because otherwise all your large all in river bets with made hands would get called and this is obviously not the case, but I could not find the right time to pull this bluff off for the life of me.

I do move down when I fancy experimenting and find it really useful but it’s never improved my 3 barrell bluffing. I still get stacked!

Just to add: in my experience at the lower limits I have found that many players who call a large turn bet call the large river bet so the second barrel seems to be the decider. If anyone has different experiences or ideas it would be good to hear them.

…snip…
I have been trying to take my hand reading to a new level to find plays like this. I generally tend to make these plays at all the wrong times and in doing so donate some money.
…snip…

Man, the feel for these things is so tough sometimes.

One thing that helped me a lot is to play a bunch of heads up and short handed games. I have been playing a bunch of $20 HU SNG’s lately. You get such a better feel for board texture and how your opponent is playing. I’ve also started to add some 6-max into my regular mix to get more play with the thinner edges.

One of the things I find hard to do is to go back to full ring (I’m primarily a full ring player) and not overdo it. You don’t play as many hands with the same players, so it’s harder to develop the feel and people are generally a bit more conservative in general, even in BvB situations which are no different than HU play.

While there is certainly something to be said for this, I think something should be said about the difference between online and live play. Online, they are much more likely to look you up because of the anonymity factor, even with garbage like 44 on a board that comes JT6, followed by a K, then another 6 (you had 89 for the straight draw), simply because they put you on AQ, the only hand you would raise with that they could beat. Online, scary boards often should be coupled with tells.

The friendlier nature of live play makes this much easier to get away with, simply because they lose face when making big calls and getting busted. There also seems to be this imaginary agreement of camaraderie because these are people you have been joking with and talking to for a few hours, and huge bluffs would be downright mean.

Online you are better off making large value bets with 3 barrels because you will get paid handsomely for doing so. Players don’t like to fold- it’s that simple.

it’s too risky in my opinion.

With respect, to say it’s too risky is rather a blanket statement.

3 barrel bluffs have their place but as always you have to pick your opponents carefully. But any half-decent player should be capable of using them profitably.

I agree with the earlier poster that they are easier plays to make in live games where loss of face is a factor.

To be a good player it’s vital to mix up your game, have the ability to improvise on the fly and have the courage of your convictions when you think you can push someone off a hand.

Ed, your post got me thinking about how much to bet on the river and if that bet size might indicate whether it’s a bluff or a value bet. So I put the following assumptions into a spreadsheet:
2 players (me & 1 opponent)
pot size on the river: 100$
stack sized: “unlimited”
opponent will call my bet (I’m first to act) with the following percentages [bet size (call%)]: 10$ (90%); 50$ (50%); 100$ (10%); 200$ (5%)

Given that data I calculated the “optimal” bet size for either a) having the nuts or b) bluffing with a surely losing hand. Since I win the pot anyway in case of a) I only looked at the additional money I can gain on the river. Since I will surely lose in case of b) I have to offset only the lost bets on the river (and not the pot itself) from the won pots, because the pot is lost anyway. I ignored reraises, because I would call them in case a) and fold in case b), so I regard them as a “call” in the calling-% of my opponent.

Results:
a) Just based on these assumptions, one should bet about half the pot to pot size when holding the nuts. One should NOT go for the almost certain call, but also not bet far more than pot size.

b) Interestingly the numbers indicate that one should bet at least pot size when bluffing. EV rises even more (but shallow) with increased bet sizes, as long as it cuts down the calling percentage. Betting half the pot (as if one were holding the nuts) has only about 1/3 of EV as betting the pot.

Here’s my question to Ed and all: What are your experiences with bluff/nuts bets on the river? Are pot sized bets a “golden” bet size that obscure best whether a bet is a bluff or a value bet?

In regards to the last post, the writer states that when bluffing, you should bet at least the pot. I disagree, as there is no mathematical quantification for this amount. When considering how much to bluff, it is just as important to consider stack sizes.

For instance, if you take the example of a $100 pot, I believe that any overbet bluff should only be made as an all-in bet when the final bet is no more than 1 3/4 of the pot (give or take). If that amount leaves you less than all-in, it is too likely to arouse suspicion, as there are few players who routinely make overbet sized value bets.

The presence of a “bet pot” button online only solidifies this concept. A live game will offer different opportunities, as the final pot size is not usually known by most players who have failed to track it.

I agree with Ed in his newest book that if you know that you should bet (bluff) but do not know how much, go with 2/3 of the pot. I would also adjust this up or down depending on your opponent’s stack size. Example: $100 pot, and your opponent has $150 left. If you bet about $70 here, a desperate opponent still can raise you enough to fold you as a bluff ($80). In this case, you are probably better off bluffing pot in this instance because even the dullest players intuitively understand that if they only raise you another $50, you are almost obligated to call and they are pretty much helpless to do anything about it. or better yet, bluff all in, whether or not this is an overbet.

Furthermore, structuring your betting according to stack sizes and planned bluffs is equally as important. For the inverse of the above case, if you have only $30 left and attempt a bluff at said $100 pot, you have either wasted your money or made a mistake earlier in the hand.

I’ve been using a method quite successfully now of folding the next hand after winning with a bluff.

It is just to let people think that I must have had a strong hand. I’m only playing small stake mtts but I think I am getting some advantage in the mental side of the game.

It can be hard folding some marginal hands especially when the adrenalin is up after a winning bluff but I find it help to keep my opponents guessing.

Furthermore, never show the bluff without a DAMN good reason. This tends to be done by amateurs, and as one well known pro has stated, it gives them information on your pre-flop standards and aggression level as well.

I agree with the poster who said a 3-barrel bluff play is hard to get away with online, and probably even more so in small NL games.

However that doesn’t stop people overusing the play.

I remember once cold calling a raise with AJ and the flop came AAA. I thought “Nice, but how the hell will I get any action here?”. But I needent have worried because the preflop raiser, whom I had position on, bet all three streets for me, donking off 2/3 of his stack in the process.

Conversely, when I started playing about 2 years ago I remember stacking off with 3-barrel bluffs several times with AK unimproved and wondering why my opponent wouldn’t go away.

As it is a high risk play online, I think before trying it you need most of the following variables to be working in your favour:

a) your believe you opponent has, at best, a marginal holding
b) your opponent is capable of folding marginal hands
c) your opponent is either the very weak type who lays down frequently on later streets, or is a solid and observant type
d) your action preflop and on each subsequent street makes sense with regard to the texture of the board
e) you are perceived as a strong and a fairly tight player
f) you have shown down some strong hands on the river
g) you haven’t been seen bluffing recently
h) you have position

I would say a) to d) are critical.
I’m not saying never use it, just be extremely selective about the situation you try it.