Blog Marco Naccarato: Metablefe

The big problem with maxims used in poker is that, through repetition, they inevitably become truths that seem unquestionable, and thus produce the undesirable effect of distancing themselves from their original concept when their use is restricted to the method alone. A classic example is the M calculation, which is based on the idea that you need to be more aggressive when the blinds and antes compromise a large part of your stack, in addition to being an indicator of the room for maneuver that remains in order to survive in a tournament. Based on this concept, the zone system was created, a practical way of applying the concept. And so you are in a tournament, your M is close to 7, and you decide to apply the method, going all in. However, there are several other creative options that can be used instead of shoving, such as the stop and go (which, at least psychologically, will generate additional doubt in your opponents). In this case, the method, although effective, limits its possibilities of action. That is why the practice of questioning is interesting in the study and search for different ways of playing poker. To learn more about the zone system and the M factor, Click here.

Well, this introduction is only necessary so that we can address and question the main subject of this article, the bluff, which is not only one of the most striking and notorious maneuvers in poker, but is certainly one of the ones that help define it. The maxim “A good bluff tells a story” obviously makes sense, and is invariably one of the first and most recurrent ones presented to those who are seeking to improve their game. Furthermore, it only gains meaning when one begins to consider poker as a game of interaction, and not exclusively a card game.

However, the phrase is not comprehensive enough when it comes to the various formats a bluff can take. In addition to the well-known “pure bluff”, other ways of deceiving the opponent are more common, such as the semi-bluff and the float. It is possible to bet representing a flush or straight when the board helps, which is opportunistic and common on the felts; we can use and abuse c-bets, as long as their frequency does not cause suspicion; or even resort to stealing blinds, attacking in position. And even without a story behind it, it is possible to bet against the inexperienced player, who will give up the hand before even thinking of something better to do.

From this point of view, bluffing is a recurring resource, used in an attempt to manipulate the hand in one's favor and, consequently, the opponent's, which is the key to this equation. Bluffing becomes a constant even when we do not consider that we are actually bluffing. Assuming that in each hand we will use all the resources and knowledge acquired to extract more value, force the opponent to give up and also lose less. Therefore, bluffing in the sense of manipulation is part and condition of this interaction.

Perhaps that's why the sentence would be more tangible if the main element were included, the opponent. It would be like this: "A good bluff tells a story to those who understand it." But who is the opponent? How does he react? What implications does this interaction between players generate? Let's look at an example. Lex Veldhuis, the ultra-aggressive Dutchman who migrated from video games to poker, is the kind of guy who bothers everyone at the table. An uncontrollable bluffer, some consider him to be just a lunatic who likes to put chips on the table, but others will defend his style, assuming that there is a reason behind his apparent madness. Although I have never played against him, I have seen him at the felt at the 2011 WSOP, and I have also been able to watch some videos of his plays on the internet, but something that caught my attention was an article with his name that I found on a poker website, where Veldhuis explains his vision of the game applied to tournaments. Click here to read the article.

In this short article, he mentions that his image as a crazy idiot (sic) at the table contributes to the success of his plays, and at a certain point in the text, he says that if players perceive that he is constantly bluffing, he will not bluff less as expected, but rather, bluff even more to force his opponent to give up.

Therefore, I understand that the maxim of good bluffing, even if retreaded, still needs to be further developed and better written, because, if the course of the game determines and is determined by the dynamics of interactions between players, emotional factors play an important role in poker, and consequently in bluffing. See this video for example:

The first bluff passes, and he shows. The second bluff in a row also passes, and he shows down his cards again. On the third bluff, it's hard to believe that he would be bluffing again... and on the fourth? And on the fifth? So, does it have value or not? This doubt then begins to be part of the set of decisions that the opponent needs to make.

If your image and the way you play influence your opponents' decisions, we can consider bluffing on another level, where understanding how your opponents think about the game and deal with situations is as effective, if not more so, than telling the story. But this is not a one-way street, and in an interactive game like poker, perhaps the success of a bluff is being caught bluffing, because only then can the table assess your style and consider that you are at least trying to use bluffing as a resource. This way, you start paving the way to generating reasonable doubt in your opponents' minds.

So there goes our maxim, retreaded again and surprisingly contradictory, where the bluff is beyond the bluff: “A good bluff is one where you get caught.”

Marco Naccarato is a businessman, designer, poker player and author of the book Floating in Vegas, which deals with small stakes in Las Vegas casinos (available for sale at www.floatinginvegas.com.br). Naccarato debuted his column on Leo Bello's Aprendendo Poker website in February, and can be found on the PD Forum under the nickname Carcamano, and every 15 days in the articles section of the PokerDicas portal. To contact the author, send an email to [email protected].