Re: What is better in poker: bluffing or playing only with good cards?
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?
Poker is more of a psychological and skill game, more than luck. The main aim of the player should be to become unpredictable or un-readable so that opponent has no idea if youve got the cards or not. If you play one style of game, that is only playing good cards or bluffing a lot of times, the good players will pick that up easily and have a better educated guess on what you might have done. Antonius is great at keeping it unpredictable while Negreanu is great at reading his oppositions plays and cards. If you can do both, Im sure you can make a good living out of just playing poker, but thats the tricky part. It is very hard to do so. Theres a lot of theory and maths involved in becoming good at poker player too. I guess you start reading a few books so that you can make better educated guesses and calling those bluffs once in a while and getting paid. Good luck. 