3 ms·
Interesting, I read some Sklansky books about 15 years ago and he talked about semibluffs, where you're partly bluffing but you've also got some chance to win.
by DennisP 5y ago
Interesting, I read some Sklansky books about 15 years ago and he talked about semibluffs, where you're partly bluffing but you've also got some chance to win. Sounds like strategy has evolved into doing the exact opposite.
- GoatOfAplomb 5y agoThe distinction is that semi-bluffs are for when there are still cards to be dealt.
- DennisP 5y agoAhh, ok thanks.
- beardedetim 5y agoWould we call that thin value betting on the river?
- GoatOfAplomb 5y agoI don't really think of thin value betting and semi-bluffing as the same concept on different betting rounds. Thin value betting gets its positive expectation (versus checking) entirely from getting called with a worse hand. It doesn't really have positive expectation from inducing a fold the way that semi-bluffing does. At least, that holds if you assume the opponent will always call with hands above a threshold and fold with hands below it. Which is correct play (though kindly ignore raises, for simplicity - but they don't blow up the argument). Only if they behave very strangely, e.g. folding with the very best hands and worst hands but calling with the decent ones, can I see a better connection with semi-bluffing on early streets.
- GoatOfAplomb 5y agoI should also say my explanation assumes we're in last betting position here. If we're first to act, the logic is somewhat more complicated than I can successfully conjure up here without going back into the books - it's been many years since I played seriously.