Two River Bluffs: Part 1

Playing the river can be tricky, but it’s often a good place for finding good situations to bluff. Ranges are more clearly defined, the pot is bigger, allowing you to put more psychological pressure on your opponent, and opponents are less likely to call speculatively. To qualify as a good bluff, I think you need to have two main elements in play. First, you must be able to represent the hand you are representing credibly, your hand must be sufficiently weak within your distribution to warrant bluffing, and your opponent’s range must be weak enough to be able to fold. I was involved in two hands in one night that I think looked like good bluffs on the surface, but let’s take a look at them a little more in depth.

The other day, I was playing in a good short-handed $5-$10 no-limit game. It was either four or five-handed most of the time, eventually getting down to heads up. This particular hand comes up when we were four-handed. Everyone else was playing too tight preflop with very few three-bets. The big blind (BB), however, was new to the table. I had never played with him before and he seemed to be a little intoxicated. I raised first to act from the cutoff with 6-5 offsuit to $30. I started the hand with $1,200. This is a hand I fold in a tough four-handed game, but since everyone was playing pretty weakly, I had opened up quite a bit. The big blind, with a $500 stack, calls.

The flop is J 9 7. He checks, I bet $40, he calls. I think this is a pretty standard continuation spot and would very rarely check behind against someone who I don’t know much about. I would check a good portion of my range against very good, aggressive players on this flop, as well as against loose-passive players that value bet the later streets poorly. I think his range looks something like weak to middling jacks, flush draws, A-10, A-8, 10-9, 10-8, 8-7, K-10, and Q-10. As discussed, my actual range is 100 percent of my opening range, but, if he were thinking about it in such terms, he would put me on A-K, A-Q, flush draws, J-10 plus, K-10, Q-10, overpairs, 9-9, 7-7, and J-J.

The turn is the Q, we both check. At this point, I had decided to shut down the bluff unless he checked to me again on the river. When I checked the turn, my range in his eyes doesn’t really narrow too much. He can probably pretty safely remove A-Q, K-10, and sets from my range, but the rest is still pretty plausible.

The river is the J. He leads for $125 with $300 behind. I move all-in, he tanks for a while and calls with A-J. His river bet represented a very narrow value range. Jacks, K-10, sets, Q-10, K-Q, or Q-J. In game, I thought his realistic range was significantly weighted towards flush draws and missed straight draws, since I don’t think sets are that likely. That range is about 55 percent value.

During the game flow, I thought that my bluff was a good one, but after visiting the hand later, I have realized a few things. First, I gave him too wide of a bluffing range. Almost all of the straight draws and flush draws that make sense now have a pair in them or made their straight. Also, I think I gave him too much credit for being able to bet a queen on the river. I think he checks most queens, as the vast majority of players in his spot do. I would bet most queens on the river in the games I play in, because there is very little bluff raising happening on the river. Since I can safely fold when raised, it becomes easier to try to get value in those spots.

So, we’ve decided that his range was too strong to try to bluff against, what about the other two criteria that were set forth in the introduction? Is the hand I’m representing credible? I think so. This is a pretty standard way to play most jacks. Bet flop with top pair, check back when an overcard hits, and bet safe river cards. I think the fact that it took him over a minute to call with A-J should be an indication of two things: First, my hand is credibly read as very strong, and second, that my opponent wasn’t thinking too deeply. The final parameter is clearly met, as I have the absolute bottom of my range with six-high.

This hand is, I think, a perfect illustration of how tough it is to analyze hands during the flow of the game. Ranges are moving targets and we can always try our best to be as accurate as possible, but it doesn’t always turn out that way. In order to become a better player and continually improve, you must work away from the table to improve your game. ♠

Gavin Griffin was the first poker player to capture a World Series of Poker, European Poker Tour and World Poker Tour title and has amassed nearly $5 million in lifetime tournament winnings. Griffin is sponsored by HeroPoker.com. You can follow him on Twitter @NHGG