A Bluff or a Naked Lie?

Recently I was in a no-limit limpfest with $2/$3/$5 blinds. For no worthwhile reason, I decided to take a shot with a short stack. I bought in for only $200 and had $150 of it left when this hand came up.

I was in the $3 small blind. Three players limped for $5, then the cutoff, who was about $600 deep, made it $40 to go. From my hour or so at the table, I could tell that he was probably my most solid opponent. While everyone else was limping constantly, he would often wait for a favorable situation, put in a solid preflop raise, and then attack anyone who decided to speculate. Essentially, he was playing exactly the way you should in a no-limit limpfest.

The button folded, and I looked down at A K. With a deeper stack I might have had a tougher decision, but with only $150 all I could really do was move in. I knew he wasn’t raising with garbage, but I also knew that my opponent’s cutoff raise, attacking limpers, would make his range a bit wider than normal. If I ran into aces or kings, so be it.

After I shoved, the big blind and the limpers all folded back to the cutoff. When he did not immediately call, I liked my prospects much better. He looked me over a little bit, and I could sense the thoughts going through his head. He recognized that I had not played too many hands, and understood that my all-in deserved some respect. After fifteen seconds or so, he looked at me again and said, “Really?”

I hadn’t planned on saying anything or even looking at him, but once he asked that, he gave me a clear opportunity. I looked at him, shrugged, and said matter-of-factly, “It’s not ace-king.”

From time to time I will offer a heads-up opponent direct information about my hand. Depending on the situation, I might tell the truth, or I might lie. In this case, I stood to win $62 uncontested if he decided to fold, so I took the line that would hopefully lead to a favorable laydown. I had to be convincing, because if he decided that I was lying, he would respond optimally, folding all non-pair hands other than A-K and calling with all pairs.

On the other hand, if I could make him think I was telling the truth, I could induce all kinds of wrong decisions. He might call with A-Q, hoping that I had tens or jacks. But more importantly, he might fold all sorts of low and middle pairs, figuring I likely had a higher one. I wouldn’t mind a call from an A-Q type of hand, but it really wouldn’t increase my EV by all that much. But getting him to fold a pocket pair would be a much stronger EV coup. It also helped that he was a thinking opponent who I felt was capable of laying down a decent hand.

As is often the case, he was not expecting such a direct answer, so my statement caused him to hesitate noticeably. After a few seconds he shrugged back at me, flashed his 9 9 and said, “Okay, nice hand.” I’m sure he showed his cards hoping I would return the favor, but that wasn’t going to happen. I picked up $62 in dead money and got slightly ahead for the session without having to win a showdown.

In my Book of Bluffs, I have a chapter titled “Unusual Bluffs” that describes some similar situations, (although usually with hands worse than A-K suited). They’re the type of bluffs that happen only once in a while and can’t really be planned ahead. Some strange circumstance happens at the table, which creates an opportunity that can be exploited, and the only thing you can do is be ready for it when it comes along. Before playing in any major tournament, not only do I do my best to mentally prepare my A-game; I also play out some scenarios in my head in which an opponent might start seeking information from me, and how I want to respond to get the desired reaction. On at least two occasions, my preparation helped me verbally (or non-verbally) lead an opponent to a critical laydown, which was the difference between busting out short of the money and making the final table.

Some people have expressed to me the opinion that bluffs like these, which sometimes involve an outright lie, border on the unethical. It’s as if they perceive some unwritten rule that says silent bluffing is acceptable, but combining it with misleading talk is wrong. I cannot disagree more strongly. What about my opponent, who wants me to give him information about my hand? It’s not unethical for him to ask for free information? The way I see it, if you don’t want your opponent to lie to you, don’t ask him about his hand. But even if my opponent doesn’t speak up, I have every right to, and I have the right to say whatever I want about my hand if I’m heads up.

The exception is at the WSOP and certain other major tournaments, where you can’t discuss your hand in heads-up situations. For what it’s worth, I think that is a terrible rule and needs to be changed immediately. I understand that it was created mostly for propriety’s sake, to avoid the appearance of collusion, but stopping people from talking isn’t going to change anything. If two people happen to be soft-playing one another, they can certainly find some non-verbal way to do so.

Heads-up situations for large portions of stacks occur all the time, and I want every weapon possible to turn the hand in my favor. Live poker involves many facets, one of which is the ability to say whatever you think will work to your advantage. I’ll continue to make plays like the one I did whenever the opportunity arises, and I see no reason why you shouldn’t do the same. ♠

Matt Lessinger is the author of The Book of Bluffs: How to Bluff and Win at Poker, available everywhere. You can find Matt’s other articles at www.cardplayer.com.