Is Bluffing Overrated at Low Stakes?

[babyrosejr]

At low-stakes cash games, many players seem to call with almost anything, which makes bluffing feel less effective. I sometimes feel like I’m burning money when I try triple-barrel bluffs, since opponents don’t like folding. Do you think bluffing is overrated at these levels? Or should we still include bluffs to stay balanced, even if they don’t always work? Curious how you guys approach bluffing in micro/low stakes cash.

 

[rsparente]

Bluffing is way overrated at micros. People just don’t fold enough, so I mostly stick to thin value and only bluff in really clear spots. Balance matters more once you move up in stakes.

 

[Feats]

Bluffing is harder to pull off, but catching bad bluffs from opponents is super profitable.

 

[fundiver199]

I think, its a bit of a myth, that "people never fold in the micros". First of all there are plenty of weak-tight players at 10NL, its not all just fish. And even if a fish might call down light with a weak pair, they probably still fold their busted draws on the river. And if we bet 2/3 pot on the river, it only need to work 40% of the time. So I think, there are few situations, where its not at least break-even to bluff the river, if we have a hand with no showdown value like 8 high.

This is assuming, that we were the aggressor the whole time, or that the opponent has shown weakness by checking at some point. If the opponent has shown nothing but strength, its generally fine to just let them have the pot instead of attempting some fancy river raise and expect them to fold a very strong hand. And its also fine to not do much bluffing at all in multiway pots.

 

[pentazepam]

Against the population: Yes.

Against a weak-tight nit: Hell No.

If you have a tight image: No.

Against a low-stakes grinder that isn't balanced: No.

It's only against calling stations and some maniacs that you should have a very low bluffing frequency. Sometimes close to zero.

 

[primrose]

I think putting all of bluffing into a single bucket is most of the issue here. Most people tend to approach the game in a relatively similar way, especially if they're new-ish, and bluff in relatively similar spots. Those are probably the kinds of bluffs that don't work well at micros. But there's other bluffs that do work.

To make it a little less abstract, I suspect that micro stakes players are probably looking too much at their own hand strength and too little at yours. So bluffing them out of a strong-ish hand by representing a monster is probably harder than bluffing them of a very mediocre hand when you have nothing. ImE bluffing people off of weak holdings when you're even weaker works against most of the field.

 

[fundiver199]

To make it a little less abstract, I suspect that micro stakes players are probably looking too much at their own hand strength and too little at yours. So bluffing them out of a strong-ish hand by representing a monster is probably harder than bluffing them of a very mediocre hand when you have nothing. ImE bluffing people off of weak holdings when you're even weaker works against most of the field.

Exactly. If the flop and turn got checked, and you have 9 high on the river, you should absolutely bluff, almost regardless who the opponent is. But I think, another reason for this myth is a fundamental misunderstanding about, what a bluff is supposed to achieve. If we bluff and get called, its easy to feel that as a failure or even feel "stupid", but the bluff only need to work 33-50% of the time assuming a 50-100% pot sizing.

Its the same situation with hero calling, where we only need to be right 25-33% of the time assuming the same 50-100% pot sizing. So just because we call with a bluff catcher and lose, does not mean, we made a bad call. It just mean, that this time the opponent was not bluffing. But a lot of beginners dont understand this fundamental math part of the game and evaluate their decisions based on the results of each individual hand.

 

[Yontox]

Bluffing works on microstakes too. In my experience obvious bluffs on dynamic boards get through often enough to bluff CBets. However you should be cautious of players calling one or two streets. They may be committed to the pot already

 

[rei signo]

I think so... the vast majority don't mind paying low stakes, in microphones, for sure!

 

[janwar]

At the very lowest stakes, I’d say bluffing is often overrated. A lot of players just aren’t folding bottom pair or even ace-high, so trying fancy bluffs can burn chips fast. On the other hand, learning when not to bluff is just as valuable as knowing how to run one. At micros, value betting strong hands usually gets you further than trying to outplay the whole table — but mixing in the occasional well-timed bluff keeps you from being too predictable.

 

[Stringy]

when the rake is high there's not point unless the pot is big

 

[caiocaetauo]

It depends a lot on the level of the players you are playing against
Sometimes when they are novice players, it turns out that it doesn't work much

 

[steve01991]

bluffing is never overrated, its part of the game, so keep on bluffing!

 

[SpanRmonka]

Classic bluff that works really well in the micros.....

C betting an A high board.

Another is the delayed C bet.

Generally though against the population I try not to include too many bluffs, I have to have good reasons to do so.

 

[LiviuRo123]

Yes - at low stakes players call too much, so solid value betting beats bluffing.

 

[RodrigoMartins]

Bluffing at low stakes is tricky. I usually keep it minimal and focus on hands that have real showdown value. Sometimes a well-timed bluff works, but most of the time, value betting is much more profitable.

 

[angelluv725]

I think bluffing is mostly about one chasing, but "Thats poker Baby" lol a quote I heard from some well-known poker guy!! I don't bluff because I am not good at it and know I will get caught. lol .. I will chase at times.