Q&A #11: Bluffing in Small Stakes No Limit Games

Don't miss one article! Subscribe to the Full Feed RSS or get NPA in your inbox.

James asks,

For the last few years, I have played limit almost exclusively (and usually at six-max tables, 5/10). I have been reluctant to play no limit ring games because my experience at the low-level games (i.e., no higher than 1/2) is that they are very boring. But I wonder if the boredom is because of an improper approach.

Specifically, I have been inclined to play two types of hands. First, I try to see flops with any pocket pair, hoping that I make trips and my opponent totally overplays their hand. The second type of hand I try to play as much as possible are the speculative hands, like suited connectors. In that scenario, I am quickly abandoning the hand on the flop if it doesn’t give me a ton of outs.

With either scenario, I feel as if I’m really just playing bingo, waiting around for hands that could result in big pots. I sense that this strategy is profitable at the real low limits – because opponents don’t pay attention and often completely overplay their hands – but it is exceptionally boring. At the higher levels, I would imagine that it is important to attack small, relatively uncontested pots as well. But because typical low-level opponents are perfectly happy to chase with overcards or weak draws even when it is mathematically incorrect, I’ve been assuming that bluffing does not pay in the long term.

So my question really boils down the following: at the low stakes no limit games, do you think it really pays to attack small pots, or is it best to bide one’s time and wait to trap opponents when you make a big hand (or a big draw)?

This is one of the age-old, tried-and-true poker questions. Should I bluff in games where my opponents call too much? The answer is yes… sometimes.

 Print :: Trackback :: Respond ::