Shall I bluff here?
Shall I bluff here?

Shall I bluff here?

NLHE $0.4 / $0.8– Heads-Up (27.9bb effective)

Seat 1: HERO (SB) — 307.9bb
Seat 2: VILLAIN (BB) — 27.9bb

Blinds:
HERO posts SB 0.5bb
VILAIN posts BB 1bb

Villain is 46 / 6.2 - standard fish

Preflop

Dealt to HERO: [9 8]

HERO raises to 2.5bb
VILAIN calls 1.5bb

Pot: 5bb

Flop — [2 J K]

VILLAIN checks
HERO bets 3bb
VILAIN calls 3bb

I decide to C bet here because the board favors my range, I have 9 high and would be happy to take it down now, even if I get called the plan is to continue barrelling on scare card and cards that improves my equity like a T

Pot: 11bb

Turn — [2 J K] [A]

VILLAIN checks
HERO bets 7bb
VILAIN calls 7bb

Turn is a scare card so I go according to the plan and continue betting, targetting a 2 , pockets 44 to 77, T highs.

Pot: 25bb

River — [2 J K A] [4]

VILAIN ( 15 bb ) checks
HERO bets 90bb

The river bricks, I decide to go for the bluff here because I dont block any draws, As vilain is a fish I consider it is totally possible he decides to play a FD passively like that, calling twice then giving up OTT. I also like to bluff here because I believe I never get the pot by checking back, sometime you check back Q high against a fish and you are actually good so thats worth metioning. But 9 high? Never happened so far.

That being said I also dislike my bluff here because vilain only has 15 to put in 25 so less than PSB, also against a fish once you get called on one street you have less fold equity on the next one. If he called flop and turn here there is a much higher chance he ll call river as he feels too involved in the hand already.

What do you guys think?

06 October 2025 at 01:38 AM
Reply...

1 Reply



When villain is super shortstacked my cbet/bluff % goes down the drain even if it's HU.

We also cbet super small if we do cbet.
I rather delay cbet than cbet flop.
Preflop I rather minclick than 2.5x when he's super shortstacked. Maybe folding or limp is ok vs superstack.
Not sure of this 3barrel vs a shortstack fish.

Reply...