In a recent session I did what could be considered Embellished Plays. I called bets on the turn and river with Ace-high. I floated the flop with bottom pair and raised the turn as a bluff, turned a set into a bluff on the river, 4-bet someone with a 5 in my hand, and was prepared to 6-bet if my opponent raised.
Fancy Plays are not a magic trick
While I got what I wanted in almost all of these spots, these plays were not the result of any “magic reads” on my opponents. I wasn’t on tilt that night, nor was I suffering from Fancy Play Syndrome. In fact, all of these plays are part of what I call Poker ABC, which is how I play when I don’t have a decent read on my opponent’s hand or what he’s going to do with it.
It’s common sense that a big bluff or a call worthy of a Greek hero requires special reading or other justifications, such as having a certain table image. However, game theory suggests otherwise. Let’s start with an example that shows how I unintentionally exploited an imbalance in an opponent’s game.
The hand started with my opponent limping from middle position. I raised to $80 with AQ on the button, the straddle and the limper called.
The flop came J44 rainbow and everyone checked. I didn't see any real reason to bet. Better hands won't fold, worse hands won't call, and JJ and other low pairs could easily be in the opponents' range.
It is true that a check gives away my own range to my opponents. That is, I am announcing to my opponents that my hand is not strong enough to bet. This may cause someone to bet on the turn, which may be uncomfortable for some players. However, I cannot tell whether this bet is a bluff or for value.
It's okay to sometimes put yourself in situations where you're not sure where you stand. More specifically, it's better to check than to make a bad bet on the flop. At least you'll have a chance to make the right decision on the turn.
The turn came a 6, putting a flush draw on the board. The straddle checked, and the limper bet $150 into a pot of $250. I called, not because I knew he was bluffing, but because I knew he had an incentive to do so. That is, I knew he could come to this decision to bluff with many hands weaker than mine, and those hands would be happy to win the pot with a bet if possible.
Furthermore, these plays didn't need to be effective as often to be profitable, since he only risked 60% of what he would win. I had a hand that beat all of my opponents' potential bluffing ranges and also had the outs in the deck to beat a lot of average and good hands, so I called.
It's true that many players will never bluff here, if you know you're up against such a player just fold the hand. What seems to worry many people is that they don't know whether they're playing against this type of opponent or not. "What if," they ask themselves, "my opponent never bluffs, and I call to catch him bluffing? Aren't I being taken advantage of?"
The answer is no, and the reason is that you won't always have a hand as strong as AQ in situations like this. Sometimes you'll have a weaker hand that you'd throw away in the face of a bet, but since your opponent never bluffs, you see one more card and get to showdown for free, or even try to bluff yourself. This player's never-bluffing strategy accidentally saves him some money when you have AQ, but it costs him money with other parts of his range.
Another thing you need to worry about is the opposite situation, an opponent who bluffs too much. You'll easily encounter players like this, and when you do, you'll not only lose $150 (minus your equity in the pot), but $400 (minus the villain's equity in the pot) by folding. Since this last mistake costs much more, make it a priority to avoid it if you're in doubt about how to proceed.
I called, the straddle folded and the river brought another 6. My opponent bet $350 and I called again.
The justification for this call is the same as for the turn: my opponent could easily be bluffing, I'm calling cheap (in this spot I only need to win 1/3 of the time to breakeven) and I will rarely have a stronger hand than mine in this situation. My opponent showed K9o and I took down the pot.
Looking at the hand my opponent showed, one of two things has to be true: either he bluffs too much or he is choosing poorly who to bluff. He should bluff sometimes, because in some situations he will have hands so weak that even if I don't fold Ace-high hands, I will fold other hands so often that it will be profitable for him to play. However, K9 is not one of those hands. I will rarely, if ever, fold a hand stronger than K9, so this is not a good situation to bluff with this hand.
This play is not a quirk of my game or my unique style of poker, it's just good poker. When facing a bet, it's correct to fold with your weaker hands, but not with your stronger hands. Consequently, it makes sense to bluff your weak hands, since you'll benefit even when your opponent folds with weak hands as well. But it's wrong to bluff with average hands, since you'll cause him to fold hands you were already beating and call with hands that beat yours.
Either my opponent will bluff with all his weak hands plus K9, which means he bluffs a lot, which makes calling with AQ profitable, or he rarely bluffs but chose this hand to do so instead of a weaker one. In the latter case, he loses money in two different scenarios: when he bets with K9 and gets called by something better, and when he decides not to bluff with weaker hands and misses out on a pot that could have been won with a simple bluff.
This shows the importance of constructing your hand ranges and plays the right way, and how a balanced range can be profitable against an opponent who doesn't pay attention to his own range. It was my opponent who tried to make a fancy play by bluffing with the wrong type of hand, and he paid for it.
Article translated and adapted from the original: Fancy Play Syndrome
English 
Português do Brasil 
Español 