The big problem with the maxims used in poker is that, due to 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. 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, as well as being an indicator of the room for maneuver left in order to survive a tournament. Based on this concept, the zone system was created, a practical way of applying the concept. So you're in a tournament, your M is close to 7, and you decide to apply the method by going all in. However, there are several other creative options that can be used in place of the shove, such as stop and go (which, at least psychologically, will generate additional doubt in your opponents). In this case, although the method is effective, it limits the possibilities for action. That's why the practice of questioning is interesting when studying and looking for different ways to play poker. To find out 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 certainly one that helps define it. The maxim "A good bluff tells a story" obviously makes sense, and it is invariably one of the first and most recurrent ones presented to those seeking to improve their game. What's more, it only becomes meaningful when you start to think of poker as a game of interaction, and not just a card game.
However, the phrase isn't comprehensive enough when it comes to the various forms a bluff can take. In addition to the well-known "pure bluff", other forms of deceiving the opponent are more common, such as the semi-bluff and the float. You can bet representing a flush or straight when the board helps, which is opportunistic and commonplace on the felt; you can use and abuse c-bets, as long as their frequency doesn't cause suspicion; or even resort to stealing blinds, attacking in position. And even without a story behind it, you can bet against the inexperienced player, who will drop his hand before he can even think of something better to do.
Seen from this point of view, bluffing is a recurring resource, used in an attempt to manipulate the hand in your favor and, consequently, the opponent, who is the key to this equation. Bluffing becomes a constant even when we don't think we're actually bluffing. On the assumption that in each hand we will use all the resources and knowledge we have acquired to extract more value, force the opponent to fold and also lose less. Therefore, bluffing in the sense of manipulating is part and condition of this interaction.
Perhaps that's why what would make the phrase more tangible would be to put the main element in it, namely the opponent. It would read "A good bluff tells a story to those who understand it". But, after all, who is the opponent? How does he react? What implications does this interaction between the players have? 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 annoys anyone at the table. An uncontrollable bluffer, he's considered by some to be just a nutter who likes to chip away, but others will defend his style, assuming there's a reason behind his apparent madness. Although I've never played against him, I've seen him on the felt at the 2011 WSOP, and I've also been able to check out some videos of his play on the internet, but something that caught my eye was an article with his name on it that I found on a poker portal, 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 one point he says that if players perceive that he is bluffing constantly, he won't bluff less as expected, but will bluff even more to force his opponent to fold.
In this way, I understand that the maxim of good bluffing, even if it has been retreaded, still needs to be further developed and better written down, 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. Take this video, for example:
The first bluff goes through, and he shows. The second bluff in a row also goes through, and he shows his cards again. On the third bluff, it's hard to believe he'd be bluffing again... what about the fourth? What about the fifth? So now does he have value or not? This doubt then becomes part of the set of decisions the opponent has to make.
If your image and the way you play influence your opponents' decisions, we can consider bluffing to be on another level, where learning how your opponents think about the game and deal with situations is just as effective, if not more so, than telling that story. But it's not a one-way street, and in a game of interaction such as poker, perhaps the success of bluffing is to be caught bluffing, because only then can the table make an assessment of your style and consider that you at least try to use bluffing as a resource. In this way, you begin to build the path to generating reasonable doubt in the minds of your opponents.
So there goes our retreaded and surprisingly contradictory maxim, where the bluff is beyond the bluff: "The good bluff is the one where you get caught".
Marco Naccarato is an entrepreneur, designer, poker player and author of the book Floating in Vegas, which deals with small stakes in Las Vegas casinos (on sale at www.floatinginvegas.com.br). Naccarato began 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 fortnight in the articles section of the PokerDicas portal. To contact the author, send an email to [email protected].
English 
Português do Brasil 