Poker is a game of relatively simple rules that swiftly scales to become a complex system

with several emergent properties. In poker, there are only 3 behavioral options - folding,
checking/calling, and betting/raising, yet this gives rise to various surprising properties, turning
poker into a complex psychological game where all players attempt to convince others that they
have the best hand, and attempt to interpret the value of other players hand through a mix of
probability, social cues and body language. Because of the inherent nature of uncertainty in
poker, bluffing (wherein a player pretends his hand is more valuable that it truly is) becomes
essential, and this essay attempts to answer the question of when bluffing does and does not
work.

Because bluffing is in essence lying, identifying bluffing equates to identifying a lie; the lie
being the appearance of being at the top of the hierarchy of card value in context of other
cards. Here, the individual agents are quite obvious the players themselves, which carry with
them the implications of identifiable idiosyncrasies such as aggression (amount of money
willing to bet on a particular hand) and opening range (willingness to bet and join a round given
a particular hand). Moreover, it is possible to identify a subagent - a player in context of their
chips relative to others, of their hands relative to the face-up cards on the board, and relative to
the predicted behavior of other agents. Here, it is accurate to claim a discrete personality that
varies according new information as a subgroup (a personality of a person who has a good hand
and would bet in corresponding magnitude). After all, bluffing becomes more believable when a
player behaves in a way they normally would not.1

Bluffing gives rise to many emergent properties, which eventually develop into higher-
order strategies in poker. For example, check-raising involves checking early, waiting for others to
raise, and then re-raising afterwards. In many ways, slow playing is the opposite of bluffing, and
entails passively waiting for the opponent to bluff. Since slow playing tempers the efficacy of
bluffing and vice versa, higher-order strategies include identifying players as aggressive bluffers vs
trappy players and respond accordingly.2 Accordingly, situations for emergent properties can
arise. For example, a dramatic example of a successful bluff could include going all-in on a
empty hand whilst the other player folds a straight. Other emergent properties include double
bluffs, where an action is intended to be perceived as a bluff, but is in fact not, or bluffs versus
bluffs, where two players, with neither having a good hand attempt to out-bluff each other,
usually resulting in one player caving in and folding. 3

1multipleagents: Not only do I decompose the act of bluffing into the bluffer, the bluffee, and the cards, but I
notice that the bluffer can themselves be decomposed into multiple personalities specific to the context of the
cards, chips and opponents. This is especially pertinent since poker emphasizes the psychological aspect of lying
and being someone else in order to win.
2#levelsofanalysis: By noting that bluffing is the strategic counterpart of slow playing, I notice the emergence of
an interesting phenomenon - at a certain level, poker becomes a game of regulating between slow playing and
bluffing strategies, since each tempers the efficacy of the other.
3 #emergentproperties: I notice that the compiling of bluffing across multiple agents produces a novel emergent
property, where neither player have good hands but bet disproportionately in order to scare the other off, usually
resulting in a card showdown where players win purely on luck.
 Together, bluffing and slow-playing comprise the heart of poker, and in turn all agents
attempt to use both tactics to win. On one level, all a successful bluff requires is a gullible
opponent; one who believes that folding to a bet is their best choice. However on deeper analysis
this can amount of several concrete factors; a gullible opponent could entail one who is
inexperienced or intimidated by large bets, or one who plays conservatively (easily willing to fold
to strong stakes). The chances of successful bluffing also depends heavily on the face-up cards on
the table the more ambiguity, the greater the chances for the opponent to imagine that one
holds a potentially strong hand. Conversely, the more clarity, the more precise the bluff would
have to be. For example, imagine a round with Q 4 A K Q face-up, with one player
having the cards 3 2. Because of the contextually low value of 3 2, it is almost
guaranteed that the opponent has a better hand, since the player would lose to almost all two-
card combinations save for the equally pathetic 3-2, in which case they would draw. There is no
way out but to bluff, such as by going all-in, in a manner one would if one had a full house.4
Finally, successful bluffing depends heavily on the bluffer vis-a-vis the bluffee (or bluffees, as the
case may be). For example, bluffing becomes especially effective when the bluffer carries the
image of a slow-player, so bluffers should fold when their opponent does not fold but calls or re-
raises, lest they get caught out as a bluffer and then their subsequent bluffs would be less
respected. Convincing bluffing is also nicely buttressed with the corresponding body language
bluffers may intentionally shake, twitch or become chatty, all of which are signs of optimism and
therefore of a strong hand capable of winning the pot).

In this essay, I have analyzed the constituent parts of successful bluffing such as ambiguity,
bluffer strategy and bluffee mentality and done so specifically for the purposes of elucidating
basic poker game theory. Other decompositions are possible: for example, the consideration of
lower level factors, such as the amount of the players at the table and their respective number of
chips could impact the efficacy of a bluff (e.g. bluffs work better against players with a medium
number of chips but not players with few chips as they would be tempted to go all-in). Creating
more holistic and higher-order models are also possible, such as one that considers the
phenomenon of momentum where one player wins a round and begins to dominate
subsequent rounds through aggressive play, including bluffs (although not any specific aggressive
play can be identified by others as a bluff, the statistical unlikelihood of one player having the
best hand for several rounds suggests that the player wins through bluffs).5 In retrospect, it is
clear that bluffing is caused by several quantitative and qualitative factors working in harmony,
and is in fact a primary cause of the emergent behaviors of poker, and of what makes the game
fun.

4 #emergentproperties: I gave a sophisticated example a situation where it logically makes sense to bluff (go all-in
without having any good cards), creating the emergent property of a round where players do not necessarily need
to have the objectively best card to win.
5#multipleagents: I give examples of other possible decompositions of factors to consider which would help to
understand the efficacy of bluffing.
Bibliography:

Chaddock, G., Pickett, M., Armstrong, T., & Oates, T. (2007). Models of strategic deficiency and
poker. In Working Notes of the AAAI Workshop on Plan, Activity, and Intent
Recognition (PAIR) (pp. 31-36).

Check-raise. (2015, April 30). In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved 03:44, September
26, 2016.

Iversen, O. H. (1993). New frontiers in cancer causation: Proceedings of the Second

International Conference on Theories of Carcinogenesis. Washington, DC: Taylor &
Francis.

Slow play. (2014, December 9). In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved 03:45,
September 26, 2016.

Wade, M. J. (n.d.). Adaptation in metapopulations: How interaction changes evolution.

Weissman, D. (2000). A social ontology. New Haven: Yale University Press.