It was pointed out, in a recent game, by a friend of mine that i never bluff. it got me to thinking if I should be bluffing more. either because it is the correct play or because i apparently have a super tight image at least with this group of players

I' m a little curious as to how often some of you other players bluff, I mean flat out bluff on the flop, turn, or river.

A couple of scenarios,

Early stages multi table NL tournament where you started with 1000 chips with say 100-200 chips in the pot 50 of them yours. you missed your draw but the river is an overcard and noone showed any real strenth before this just a minimum bet and 1 other caller on the flop and turn and now it is checked to you.

Late stages of multi table tournament you have an average stack in the big blind and you and 2 limpers checked the flop around. turn is a blank.

In a limit game its easy, bluff according to game theory.

In a tournament you have to bluff or semi bluff quite often when the blinds are high. Especially with that tight image.

__________________
“There's no sense in being precise when you don't even know what you're talking about.” - John von Neumann

I would almost never bluff in the spot you describe in a NL tournament.

Some one has something and will call, even if it is just middle pair, you have to push in too much to make it worthwhile.

I can't say I have a specific frequency, it is totally situational.

I probably bluff too much for the limit games I play.

I will run overcard bluffs like MXPs post at some times.

When I play I don't say to myself, wow I have 72 I think I am going to bluff. I bluff (or try to) when I my opponent shows definant weakness and I know that I can drive the other person out or at least have something to fall back on if I am called (small pair, etc). Remember, bluffing is an art. Knowing how to bluff is just as important as knowing when you can bluff and get away with it. My 2 cents.

I know it is all situational, but I'm curious about in a generalized kind of game theory way and your thoughts on this.

If someone steals 20 bases in 20 tries he is really helping his team win, but what if he could have stolen 33 out of 40 if he decided to run in marginal spots as well as sure things? Which statistic is better not his personal success rate, but winning games rate?

I've been thinking of bluffing the same way lately, I run probably 85-90% success rate when I bluff, which is a great success rate. But would my overall $$$$ won rate be better if i was say only 70% succesful?

I'm a great hand reader, and I'm even better at spotting mannerisms (tells). This contributes to my bluffing success rate, but what if i were to start bluffing say 25% of the time when I'm 50/50 on if i should bluff instead of only bluffing when I'm say 75% sure it will work?

Any other thoughts on this?

I'll skip the baseball analogy as it has WAY to many variables to work out.

If you are 85-90% when you bluff you are getting away with it BECAUSE you dont bluff a lot. If you bluff enough to where it is only 70% succesful(marginal spots) people will notice you are bluffing more and are not as likely to belive you.(good and bad)
Bluffing on game theory is this:
Say its 5/10 limit holdem and there is 50 in the pot going to the river. it is head-up.
Also lets assume you're hand is worthless, not even a face card for showdown value. If you get called you WILL be beaten. Youl should bet in a way that your opponents pot-odds to call your bet are the same as the rate you are bluffing. In this situation 50:10 You should bet once every six times.

__________________
“There's no sense in being precise when you don't even know what you're talking about.” - John von Neumann

I probably should have pointed out that I know game theory pretty well, I have taken 2 courses in it, so i don't need an explanation of it. Also your explanation is a little fuzzy, you shouldn't bet 1 out of 6 times in this spot. it all depends on the percentage chance your opponent will fold.

If your opponent will fold 50% of the time than you have a 50% chance of being called the times you bluff. if you played this scenario 60 times, every 10 times you bluff (50 times you fold) you will win 5 times or $250, 5 times you will be called losing $50 total. you win $200 total using this strategy. if you bluffed 3 out of 6 pots now you would be bluffing 30 times winning $50 15 times and losing $10 15 times. for a total profit of $600, a better play. it all depends on your perception of how often your opponent will call. the correct strategy is to bluff every pot against this opponent, you will lose $300 and win $1500.

If he is going to call 90% of the time you will be called 9 times using your strategy for a total loss of $90, and win $50 once a -$40 play. using a 50% bluffing frequency against this opponent (bluffing at 30 pots instead of 10) will win me $150 and lose me $270. this opponent requires a different strategy than our previous 1. This guy is basically unbluffable by the way with this pot.

I guess what I'm looking to find out from people is all things being equal, when do you bluff? When you are 50% sure it will work, 70%, only 100%? when you are 60% sure do you trust your reads and bluff 100% of the time? or do you randomize your attempted bluffs, maybe only bluffing 50% of the time when you are 60% sure it will work?

Assuming an unknown opponent you bet 1:5 here. This basically is the "safe" way to go. But you should really only resort to game theory against tough players who can out think you. And you know to be able to make good laydowns/ good calls.

__________________
“There's no sense in being precise when you don't even know what you're talking about.” - John von Neumann

not neccasarily, game theory should be used in any known circumstances, good player or bad.

an unknown opponent makes using game theory impossible since you have no idea what he will do.

if you have a % you can assign to the situation you can create a long term winning strategy for it.

Bill, a bad player, routinely will call with Ace high on the end if there is any chance you could be bluffing. He is a bad player but you can still use game theory to extract money from him.

Versus bad players its rarely needed. Vs someone like Bill you would simply show him a hand, and value bet a pair of dueces if its likely from the play of the hand he could have A high.

__________________
“There's no sense in being precise when you don't even know what you're talking about.” - John von Neumann