What is better in poker: bluffing or playing only with good cards?

[Don Pedro Dinero]

In low levels, it is better to play only with good cards and to value bet. If you play online and you use a statistic program, you can bluff in certain spots. For example, if an opponent fold 50% of the time to the continuation bet, you can bet safely 50% of the pot in any flop because it is a profitable EV+ movement.

In higher levels, bluffing and semi-bluffing is more important.

[crwth]

I guess it’s a combination of knowing what to do when you have those certain cards. If you see people who are good in bluffing, they have the confidence in what they are doing and they could also bluff when they have good cards and act like you have a bad one. It’s a combination and it’s definitely a great strategy to do.

[btctalk4life]

I think using both combined bluffing and playing with good cards are good. If you only play with good cards, other player will know your strategy. It's depend on the situation too.

[vd309]

In low levels, it is better to play only with good cards and to value bet. If you play online and you use a statistic program, you can bluff in certain spots. For example, if an opponent fold 50% of the time to the continuation bet, you can bet safely 50% of the pot in any flop because it is a profitable EV+ movement.

In higher levels, bluffing and semi-bluffing is more important.

Your maths is wrong. If opponent is folding more then 33% of the time it is auto profitable to bet 50% of the pot. Here is the formula to get break even and you could go from there:  breakeven % = risk / (risk + reward)
If pot is 100 and you bet 50 then you risk 50 to win 150 so opponent needs to fold more then 33% to be profitable.
This formula can be used if you try to calculate whether the bluff is profitable as well - for a pot size bet bluff it needs to work more then 50% of the time.

[Don Pedro Dinero]

I think using both combined bluffing and playing with good cards are good. If you only play with good cards, other player will know your strategy. It's depend on the situation too.

In low levels, other players don't pay attention to your strategy. That's why you can play only with good cards, and value betting.

Your maths is wrong. If opponent is folding more then 33% of the time it is auto profitable to bet 50% of the pot. Here is the formula to get break even and you could go from there:  breakeven % = risk / (risk + reward)
If pot is 100 and you bet 50 then you risk 50 to win 150 so opponent needs to fold more then 33% to be profitable.
This formula can be used if you try to calculate whether the bluff is profitable as well - for a pot size bet bluff it needs to work more then 50% of the time.

Your reading comprehension is wrong. Read again. I knew that before you were born.

[vd309]

It is true that is profitable, but the breakeven line is 33% so some new players may got confuse with your statement.

[Don Pedro Dinero]

Even though your explanation is more accurate, I just put an example because I took for granted that the average reader of this board doesn’t know much about poker, so they could get confused by a formula.

Apart from that, if we use that formula for cash, we would need to take rake into account, so the opponent would need to fold more than 33%.

[btc_angela]

I've been watching some poker tournaments with Antonius, Negreanu and Cates lately. Most of the time the person with better combination actually wins, but there occur some great bluffs from time to time as well. Do you think it is better to fold if you don't have at least one high card in a pair or two cards of the same suit? Is it worth to try out overbetting tricks when you really have shitty cards? When I tried playing poker, overbetting usually made me fold, because it is a hard psychological attack for me and I am not the kind of a person that is willing to risk a lot. But I am bad at poker. What is your opinion on this matter?

Those are pro, they can bluff and win the pot and I have seen Negreanu doing it, as he is good in reading the opponents cards as well and can see it they are bluffing or not. For me you can try it for sometime and see how good you are at bluffing others.  . But for those casuals like us, much better to take it easy and fold if you don't have a good card and hope that you will get a good one on the next deal.

[Indrawan77]

I think we need both of those strategy to win the game, the main point to win in pvp poker game is to become unpredictable because once the opponents know your strategy then you will lose the game, so bluffing is one of the most important skill in poker, poker is the only gamble game that you can win although you got a bad card that is why so many like to play poker

[ninobtcx]

I've been watching some poker tournaments with Antonius, Negreanu and Cates lately. Most of the time the person with better combination actually wins, but there occur some great bluffs from time to time as well. Do you think it is better to fold if you don't have at least one high card in a pair or two cards of the same suit? Is it worth to try out overbetting tricks when you really have shitty cards? When I tried playing poker, overbetting usually made me fold, because it is a hard psychological attack for me and I am not the kind of a person that is willing to risk a lot. But I am bad at poker. What is your opinion on this matter?

Two completely different things.

I'd say if winning is ALL you want, then you MUST be a turtle and play only with good cards.
Which is really boring! Especially if you are in a fun social environment such as a real casino.

Bluffing is an art and one can always get burned by it.. check out youtube videos on WSOP bluffs went bad.

[Kate Beckett]

Good cards in poker are the result of luck, while the ability to skillfully bluff a person can use in any case at his own discretion. Bluffing is what helps the player to win even with bad cards. Professional players rely primarily on themselves and their abilities, and only then - on the luck and will of the case.

[bitzizzix]

Bluffing on poker gambling is a common thing and everyone will use it that way, so you should also be ready when your opponents bully back.
it's all excitement at the time of playing poker and it requires strong mental and strong capital, the most important must have strong feelings when bully or otherwise.

[Wendigo]

-snip-

Yeah, in online tournaments, particularly freerolls, all rules and tactics go out the window for the first 10-20 hands. I would barely even call it bluffing - people going all in pre-flop and you knew full well that the majority of them had nothing spectacular, and were just betting on getting some lucky community cards.

I hated playing in freerolls, because no basic rules or common sense applied there before you have reached the final table and usually it was a massive waste of time for no gain at all as you would be busted half-way through even if you played strictly by the book. In the paid tournaments and sit&go's things were much better as people don't go all crazy most of the time when their cash in on the line. Aggressive maniacs frequently make it to the final table though, because after they double or triple their stacks the snowball effect is real and it's very, very difficult to compete with the monster stacks when they literally can bust you with a simple raise or re-raise.

[kryptqnick]

I've been watching some poker tournaments with Antonius, Negreanu and Cates lately. Most of the time the person with better combination actually wins, but there occur some great bluffs from time to time as well. Do you think it is better to fold if you don't have at least one high card in a pair or two cards of the same suit? Is it worth to try out overbetting tricks when you really have shitty cards? When I tried playing poker, overbetting usually made me fold, because it is a hard psychological attack for me and I am not the kind of a person that is willing to risk a lot. But I am bad at poker. What is your opinion on this matter?

In poker, you should have no predictable behavior. You have to establish to your opponents that you do bluffing so when you have really good cards and you raised high, your opponents will think that you're just bluffing and that you probably don't have good cards.
 You can have really shitty cards and still be able to win by bluffing and making everyone fold.

This sounds very reasonable. Unpredictability is very important. It is also very good if you are able to predict the cards of your opponent. I saw one marvelous bluff by Negreanu when he got terrible cards but kept raising and then said to his opponent: 'You must have Ace King or two Aces". As we saw on the screen, he indeed had Ace King, so when he heard Negreanu saying that and raising more, he just folded.
But pretending you have awesome cards when they are just normal seems okay, while putting a lot of money in a game you can't win unless everyone folds looks too risky to me anyway.

[milewilda]

I've been watching some poker tournaments with Antonius, Negreanu and Cates lately. Most of the time the person with better combination actually wins, but there occur some great bluffs from time to time as well. Do you think it is better to fold if you don't have at least one high card in a pair or two cards of the same suit? Is it worth to try out overbetting tricks when you really have shitty cards? When I tried playing poker, overbetting usually made me fold, because it is a hard psychological attack for me and I am not the kind of a person that is willing to risk a lot. But I am bad at poker. What is your opinion on this matter?

In poker, you should have no predictable behavior. You have to establish to your opponents that you do bluffing so when you have really good cards and you raised high, your opponents will think that you're just bluffing and that you probably don't have good cards. Poker is basically just knowing how much to bet, when to bet high, when to bluff, and when to fold. You can have really shitty cards and still be able to win by bluffing and making everyone fold. Poker is really skill-based. What are you going to do with your cards, that's what it's all about. You will never always get full house combination or flush or straight cards.

If you're only going to play with good cards, you will end up always folding. So by the time you raised, they will know that you have good cards. Thus, they will fold and you will only get what's in the pot. You have to be able to confuse or trick your opponents so you can make the most from your cards.

Skills do vary and you should really make yourself to be unpredictable. I remember those days when im still new to Poker where veteran players can easily detect if you are just bluffing. When you do suck up on earlier days on playing but when you do gain experience on playing specially into very good players you would able to identify on yourself on how to set-up or hold a card and make bluff when you do have a shitty card.
It do works but well this will still depend if luck would be on your side too.

[Pab]

Depends .Does anybody did try bluffing with online poker
If you will play always only with good cards then your rivals will know the way you are playing
So it is  poker be flexible

[sweetbet]

I would feel a lot more confident going into a poker game with good cards, than having to bluff my way through the game.

[Caladonian]

I've been watching some poker tournaments with Antonius, Negreanu and Cates lately. Most of the time the person with better combination actually wins, but there occur some great bluffs from time to time as well. Do you think it is better to fold if you don't have at least one high card in a pair or two cards of the same suit? Is it worth to try out overbetting tricks when you really have shitty cards? When I tried playing poker, overbetting usually made me fold, because it is a hard psychological attack for me and I am not the kind of a person that is willing to risk a lot. But I am bad at poker. What is your opinion on this matter?

Watching is different when you are already the person who's playing same deal with playing free games and the actual gambling, I guess its hard to bluffs when you are ain't sure about the mental capability of your opponents, sometimes you'll be lucky but most of the time you'll failed the difference is who's playing against with and how experienced they are in terms of this game, poker is really  entertaining yet very engaging type of gambling, it's all about money management and how tough you can risk inside the table.

[WaffleMaster]

Speaking from some experience, it is almost always a better play to just wait until you have some good cards instead of get fancy and bluff people off strong hands. For starting hands and going to a flop there's a pretty general list of cards depending on what position you are in the hand.

[JanpriX]

Well, that scenario that the OP sited separates the experienced poker player to the rest of the pack. To fold or to play his hand even if it's very weak and bluff comes down to experience of the player and if he has the balls to take any risks that encompasses with his decisions. It would take a lot of balls to do that (any of the options that I said above) especially when the stakes are higher than a normal match but veteran players make good amount of money out of these situations.