Are Fancy Bluffs Profitable?

For great players, the answer is yes. If those bluffs weren't profitable, great players wouldn't make them. They play poker to make money, not to show off.

For you, me, and most other people, the answer is no. We don't have the exceptional skills needed to make profitable fancy bluffs, and some of us make fancy plays primarily to show off. That statement may offend you, but I'm in the realism business.
My latest book, Poker Winners Are Different, states that winners are brutally realistic, while losers kid themselves about their skills and motives. An excerpt from that book states: "The desire to think well of ourselves causes us to overestimate virtually all of our abilities." (Card Player, Oct. 2, 2007; see CardPlayer.com) Before analyzing the way that this tendency affects bluffing, let's examine the factors that determine the profitability of various bluffs.

EV is Always the Central Issue

Your long-term profits are approximately equal to your EV (expected value), your chances of winning or losing times the amounts you can win or lose. Many bluffs are profitable - even if they often fail - because you risk much less than you can win. For example, if you bluff for $10 into a $40 pot, it is profitable if your chances of winning are better than 20 percent.

With many fancy bluffs, you risk much more than you can gain. You either overbet the pot or deliberately overplay weak or even terrible cards on the early streets to set up a bluff on the turn or river. Several of my friends have described this type of bluff:

• Matt Lessinger, "My 2000 'Bluff of the Year' Award Goes to …" (Poker Digest, Dec. 28, 2000, Page 39)

• David Sklansky and Ed Miller, No Limit Hold'em: Theory and Practice (Pages 196-197)

• Sam O'Connor, How to DOMINATE $1 and $2 No-limit Hold'em (Pages 373-375)

• Barry Tanenbaum, "Bluffing in Limit Hold'em: Mission Impossible? Part VIII - More River Bluffs, and the Conclusion" (Card Player, March 25, 2009), and "Countermeasures" (in this issue of Card Player)

Some of the bluffs they described should not even be attempted without a favorable card on the turn or river. That is, you can invest a lot of money on the early streets, but if the right card doesn't hit, you should give up on the bluff.

For example, O'Connor's "hero" set up a no-limit hold'em bluff by calling a preflop raise and reraise with J-3 offsuit, and check-raised the turn when a third diamond hit.

Tanenbaum described "an amazing bluff." A limit hold'em player with J-7 offsuit called or raised a total of 4.5 big bets before the flop, on the flop, and on the turn, and could win only if the board paired on the river, and his bluff made his opponent fold his straight.

Lessinger described a pot-limit Omaha bluff with pocket kings and a single-suited flop, which he believed (correctly) gave his opponent a set of aces. He could not make a flush, and the bluff would work only if the board did not pair, and if his opponent folded after calling substantial bets on the flop and turn.

Ed Miller deliberately built a large pot when he thought he was behind, because he believed his weak-tight opponent would fold rather than call a large bet. He bet $100 into a $90 pot with pocket tens and a flop of Q 5 5. After the turn of the 9, he bet $300. His opponent called, making the pot $890. When the 7 came on the river, apparently making his flush, he bet $760. His opponent showed the 5 2 and folded.

Since the compound probability of getting the right cards and bluffing successfully is very low, and you can lose more than you can win, such plays are usually extremely unprofitable. They have to succeed very frequently.

But wait, haven't you seen many similar plays on television? And don't they almost always succeed? Of course you've seen them, but you're missing two points:

• The TV producers show only the most dramatic hands, and fancy bluffs are dramatic. Failed bluffs - especially when a player invested a substantial amount of chips setting up a bluff that he didn't even attempt - don't get shown.

• Most players on TV are immeasurably better at reading and manipulating opponents than we are, and so are my writer friends (even though other people made most of the bluffs they described). Without those abilities, attempting fancy bluffs is usually foolish.

Lessinger made that point in "Overdoing the Float." (Card Player, Jan. 30, 2008) He praised Stu Ungar's ability to float the flop so that he could bluff on the turn and river, and then said, "I see far too many players (especially younger ones) taking a play that requires timing and finesse and attempting it indiscriminately."

Should You Completely Avoid Fancy Bluffs?

Maybe. It would certainly be safer. However, if you never tried one, you could become too predictable. If you play against weak players, you can get away with being predictable. If you play against good ones, predictability is a serious weakness. If you play against top players, it's fatal.

Let's look again at Lessinger's analysis of floating the flop. The key word is "indiscriminately." Poker is a supremely situational game, and you should not do anything indiscriminately, especially in regard to high-risk bluffs. Unless the time and place are exactly right, don't even think of trying a fancy bluff.

You should try high-risk, fancy bluffs only when you are extremely confident that:

• You have read your opponent and the situation correctly.

• You have immense control over your opponent. You know how he perceives you and how he will react.

Warning: Most players overestimate both. They remember their successful moves and forget their mistakes.

What About Intangible Rewards and Punishments?

Fancy bluffs can produce both intangible rewards and intangible punishments. The more often you bluff, even if you get caught frequently, the more action you will get on your winners, and the more confused your opponents will become. And a fancy bluff is a huge "kick" that can increase your confidence, aggression, and decisiveness.

However, if you fail, you may feel stupid and berate yourself for wasting money. You also may become too passive and pass up subsequent high-EV bluffing opportunities. And each failed bluff increases the probability that your future bluffs will be called.

Warning: You may not accurately assess these intangible rewards and punishments. If you love to bluff, you may rationalize that your losses are "advertising expenses." If you hate to bluff, you may overemphasize the costs of unsuccessful bluffs. Underestimating and overestimating these intangible effects are huge mistakes.

Those mistakes bring us back to EV and profitability, which should always be your primary concern. As I said in "Winners are Judiciously Deceptive" (Card Player, Feb. 11, 2009), "Disregard your guilt about being dishonest, your fear of looking foolish, and the kick you get from fancy moves. Do whatever will increase your long-term profits."

Dr. Schoonmaker ([email protected]) coaches only on psychology issues, such as controlling impulses, coping with losing streaks, going on tilt, and planning your self-development. You can buy his books, Your Worst Poker Enemy and Your Best Poker Friend, at CardPlayer.com.