Jump to content


sb vs. bb when you are sb


  • Please log in to reply
52 replies to this topic

#21 MrNiceGuy

MrNiceGuy

    Poker Forum Veteran

  • Members
  • 1,142 posts

Posted 14 November 2005 - 07:27 PM

justblaze said:

dont really want to play low suited connectors against a villain who is going to check/call to the river regardless. you just have way too many tricky decisions on the flop and your implied odds are screwed by the fact that villain wont ever raise without the nuts. the list of problems with this play goes on and on.
Justblaze,I'm pretty sure this part of your statement is wrong.At the extreme, suppose the BB was the world's biggest fish. Say he will call to showdown with anything (even with 32 UI, hoping for a split), and that he will never bet or raise with any hand except for on the river with the nuts.Against this opponent, in a blind structure where the SB is 1/2 of the BB, it would be marginally correct to at least open-limp with any two (even 32o) if the SB (at least, if the rake is small), since you'd be getting 3-1 immediate on your limp (even 32o is 2-1 to win by the river vs. an random hand) and you'd have the advantage postflop (since you can bet for value when you have an equity edge against a random hand, and check when you don't).Obviously no real opponent is quite this loose-passive postflop, and it would never be correct to limp with weak offsuit junk. However, against passive opponents, I can see limping middle connectors (say, stuff like 86o), for example, primarily for pair value - 86o would not be favored against a random hand, but are around 45%, which would justify playing since you're getting a reduced price to enter the pot.I'm assuming that the BB is a relatively unobservant player, such that metagame considerations won't be a major concern.Also, if BB is a passive player, it may be correct to limp and then fold certain hands if he raises, even though you're still getting 3-1, since you're now up agains demonstrated strength instead of a random hand.However, up against players that are not extremely passive, I agree that it may be better to never open-limp from the SB.

#22 Abbaddabba

Abbaddabba

    breaking even like it's 1999

  • Members
  • 5,225 posts

Posted 14 November 2005 - 07:34 PM

Quote

Also, if BB is a passive player, it may be correct to limp and then fold certain hands if he raises, even though you're still getting 3-1, since you're now up agains demonstrated strength instead of a random hand.
In the few occasions that ive had the luxery of playing LHE HU against a loose passive, i did exactly that. They raise so few hands that i can safely fold after completing, despite the fact that it's the same relative price to call. That is true for many players that you will face at the lower limits, and probably higher, though it'd be more rare.

#23 justblaze

justblaze

    Poker Forum Veteran

  • Members
  • 4,430 posts

Posted 14 November 2005 - 10:58 PM

MrNiceGuy said:

justblaze said:

dont really want to play low suited connectors against a villain who is going to check/call to the river regardless. you just have way too many tricky decisions on the flop and your implied odds are screwed by the fact that villain wont ever raise without the nuts. the list of problems with this play goes on and on.
Justblaze,I'm pretty sure this part of your statement is wrong.At the extreme, suppose the BB was the world's biggest fish. Say he will call to showdown with anything (even with 32 UI, hoping for a split), and that he will never bet or raise with any hand except for on the river with the nuts.Against this opponent, in a blind structure where the SB is 1/2 of the BB, it would be marginally correct to at least open-limp with any two (even 32o) if the SB (at least, if the rake is small), since you'd be getting 3-1 immediate on your limp (even 32o is 2-1 to win by the river vs. an random hand) and you'd have the advantage postflop (since you can bet for value when you have an equity edge against a random hand, and check when you don't).Obviously no real opponent is quite this loose-passive postflop, and it would never be correct to limp with weak offsuit junk. However, against passive opponents, I can see limping middle connectors (say, stuff like 86o), for example, primarily for pair value - 86o would not be favored against a random hand, but are around 45%, which would justify playing since you're getting a reduced price to enter the pot.I'm assuming that the BB is a relatively unobservant player, such that metagame considerations won't be a major concern.Also, if BB is a passive player, it may be correct to limp and then fold certain hands if he raises, even though you're still getting 3-1, since you're now up agains demonstrated strength instead of a random hand.However, up against players that are not extremely passive, I agree that it may be better to never open-limp from the SB.
you all make convincing arguments. i still think that you gain tremendous fold equity and metagame considerations, and will continue with my plan to never open-complete.

#24 Smasharoo

Smasharoo

    Poker Forum Veteran

  • Members
  • 8,879 posts
  • Location:Boston

Posted 15 November 2005 - 11:35 AM

Also, if BB is a passive player, it may be correct to limp and then fold certain hands if he raises, even though you're still getting 3-1, since you're now up agains demonstrated strength instead of a random hand.Complete/fold?Quite possibly the stupidest thing ever written on this forum.
I've never played poker.

#25 MrNiceGuy

MrNiceGuy

    Poker Forum Veteran

  • Members
  • 1,142 posts

Posted 15 November 2005 - 12:11 PM

Smasharoo said:

Also, if BB is a passive player, it may be correct to limp and then fold certain hands if he raises, even though you're still getting 3-1, since you're now up agains demonstrated strength instead of a random hand.Complete/fold?Quite possibly the stupidest thing ever written on this forum.
In a 1-2 blind structure, HU against a BB who's stats are, say, 60/2/0.8, I'd complete/fold with a hand like 86o (43% equity against a random hand, 29% against AA-99, AK-AJ, KQ).

#26 Smasharoo

Smasharoo

    Poker Forum Veteran

  • Members
  • 8,879 posts
  • Location:Boston

Posted 15 November 2005 - 02:04 PM

In a 1-2 blind structure, HU against a BB who's stats are, say, 60/2/0.8, I'd complete/fold with a hand like 86o (43% equity against a random hand, 29% against AA-99, AK-AJ, KQ).So you'd fold getting 3 to 1 on the call because you think your opponent will fold, say, AA when you the flop is 66J thus negating your implied odds?Or because you don't understand implied odds at all?let me know.good luck.
I've never played poker.

#27 Actuary

Actuary

    .

  • Members
  • 19,028 posts

Posted 15 November 2005 - 02:07 PM

I knew we were missing something!

#28 MrNiceGuy

MrNiceGuy

    Poker Forum Veteran

  • Members
  • 1,142 posts

Posted 15 November 2005 - 03:03 PM

Smasharoo said:

In a 1-2 blind structure, HU against a BB who's stats are, say, 60/2/0.8, I'd complete/fold with a hand like 86o (43% equity against a random hand, 29% against AA-99, AK-AJ, KQ).So you'd fold getting 3 to 1 on the call because you think your opponent will fold, say, AA when you the flop is 66J thus negating your implied odds?Or because you don't understand implied odds at all?let me know.good luck.
Chances that I outflop a big pair with 86o = 4.5% = 1/22.5Amount I gain (vs. folding PF) if I outflop a big pair, we cap every street, and he misses any redraws: 23 SBs, minus the rake.Implied odds don't justify calling here, IMO.Increased fold equity postflop may justify open-raising rather than open-completing. The chance to increase action when I open with a big pair may justify open-raising instead of completing as well.But I believe, if you open-complete, then folding to a raise from a passive opponent would be correct.

#29 Abbaddabba

Abbaddabba

    breaking even like it's 1999

  • Members
  • 5,225 posts

Posted 15 November 2005 - 03:46 PM

I think if he's as passive post flop as he is preflop, you could still justify calling.

#30 Smasharoo

Smasharoo

    Poker Forum Veteran

  • Members
  • 8,879 posts
  • Location:Boston

Posted 15 November 2005 - 07:22 PM

But I believe, if you open-complete, then folding to a raise from a passive opponent would be correct.You'd be wrong. Not close. good luck.
I've never played poker.

#31 Steppin Razor

Steppin Razor

    Poker Forum Groupie

  • Members
  • 713 posts

Posted 15 November 2005 - 08:21 PM

There is no reason to ever just call in the SB if you're opening. Making the pot bigger by 1 small bet isn't going to make the pot 'juicy'. Nor, since you only have one opponent, is it ever going to build a pot that gives odds to any kind of draw.Why would anyone in this situation even care about hitting the flop? Chances are neither of you will. The person who wins will be the person who says, 'that's my pot, you better have a hand.'Force him to hit the flop or fold.If anyone ever open limps from the SB against my BB, I'm raising PF. I'm betting the flop if checked to. I'm raising if bet into. With any two cards.

#32 MrNiceGuy

MrNiceGuy

    Poker Forum Veteran

  • Members
  • 1,142 posts

Posted 15 November 2005 - 11:18 PM

Smasharoo said:

But I believe, if you open-complete, then folding to a raise from a passive opponent would be correct.You'd be wrong.  Not close.  good luck.
If a passive player opens preflop, and it's folded to you in the BB, do you almost always defend?

#33 jayboogie

jayboogie

    Poker Forum Veteran

  • Members
  • 2,493 posts
  • Location:Toronto

Posted 15 November 2005 - 11:46 PM

Complete folding is just plain stupid. Got to be the dumbest concept ever, I'd want somebody to shoot me dead if I ever did it. You get 3:1 if your raised and well unless he flips over Aces or an Overpair to your offsuit rags, you'd better be sure I'm calling a raise after completing.For those that say you shouldn't complete, I would disagree, there's a time for completing and a time for raising. This is dictated by the table conditions. You'll usually never see me folding a hand as good as 67 offsuit in the sb against a typical opponent. I might raise with it sometimes, I might limp with it others, both are ok as long as your mixing up what hands your limping/raising with.

#34 jayboogie

jayboogie

    Poker Forum Veteran

  • Members
  • 2,493 posts
  • Location:Toronto

Posted 15 November 2005 - 11:49 PM

Also I should note, blind play is what seperates the middle/higher limits from low limits. If you're going to move up higher, you better learn to play from the blinds and learn to play a wide assortment of hands in the blinds. You'll need to do your share of stealing and defending if your going to be successful, otherwise you're going to get run over.

#35 CoranMoran

CoranMoran

    Poker Forum Veteran

  • Members
  • 1,480 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Portland, Oregon
  • Favorite Poker Game:Short Handed Limit Ring; No-Limit Tournies

Posted 16 November 2005 - 09:18 AM

Quote

There is no reason to ever just call in the SB if you're opening
As in all poker situations, it is important to continuously mix up your game. Always playing the same way in the same situation is foolish.In these situations, the reason why most players prefer to raise from the SB is due to the fold equity involved.Without this chance of the BB folding, the play is poor.You would simply be buiding a pot in which you are out of position. But it should be obvious, that if we open-raise every time from the sb, the bb will learn to call with any holding.Thus our fold equity is gone.And the play becomes unprofitable.Mix it up.Don't be predictable.--cnm

#36 Steppin Razor

Steppin Razor

    Poker Forum Groupie

  • Members
  • 713 posts

Posted 16 November 2005 - 09:59 AM

The mix up your play caveat is a given for every poker situation. However, the vast majority of the time, if I'm not going to fold, I'm going to raise. Sure, I might get the BB to call more loosely (which is fine with me), but I still force him to hit hands moreso than if I just complete.

#37 pokerplayer24

pokerplayer24

    supernova

  • Members
  • 3,068 posts
  • Location:Dominating

Posted 16 November 2005 - 10:28 AM

Steppin Razor said:

There is no reason to ever just call in the SB if you're opening. Making the pot bigger by 1 small bet isn't going to make the pot 'juicy'. Nor, since you only have one opponent, is it ever going to build a pot that gives odds to any kind of draw.Why would anyone in this situation even care about hitting the flop? Chances are neither of you will. The person who wins will be the person who says, 'that's my pot, you better have a hand.'Force him to hit the flop or fold.If anyone ever open limps from the SB against my BB, I'm raising PF. I'm betting the flop if checked to. I'm raising if bet into. With any two cards.
If I have AA or KK its quite possible i'm cold calling preflop. Or if I have a mediocre hand like 109 or 89 vs a loose passive player.

#38 Smasharoo

Smasharoo

    Poker Forum Veteran

  • Members
  • 8,879 posts
  • Location:Boston

Posted 16 November 2005 - 10:46 AM

If a passive player opens preflop, and it's folded to you in the BB, do you almost always defend?Yes.In fact, if it's heads up I almost allways defend, period. There are situations where I'll fold, but it's more because the game is good and I'd rather just move on to the next hand. There are some hands that can be tough to play against a passive player's raise that I might muck for the same reason. A7o for instance. Fold 82o heads up, though? Never.good luck.
I've never played poker.

#39 Verdimme

Verdimme

    Poker Forum Groupie

  • Members
  • 921 posts
  • Location:Amsterdam

Posted 16 November 2005 - 11:19 AM

Smasharoo said:

If a passive player opens preflop, and it's folded to you in the BB, do you almost always defend?Yes.In fact, if it's heads up I almost allways defend, period. There are situations where I'll fold, but it's more because the game is good and I'd rather just move on to the next hand. There are some hands that can be tough to play against a passive player's raise that I might muck for the same reason. A7o for instance. Fold 82o heads up, though? Never.good luck.
Hi, can you elaborate on why you will defend?

#40 CoranMoran

CoranMoran

    Poker Forum Veteran

  • Members
  • 1,480 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Portland, Oregon
  • Favorite Poker Game:Short Handed Limit Ring; No-Limit Tournies

Posted 16 November 2005 - 11:22 AM

If one makes a habit of complete-folding, he is certainly going to lose money in the long run.But this fact alone does not mean that the fold is necessarily wrong in certain situations.

Quote

Complete folding is just plain stupid. Got to be the dumbest concept ever, I'd want somebody to shoot me dead if I ever did it. You get 3:1 if your raised and well unless he flips over Aces or an Overpair to your offsuit rags, you'd better be sure I'm calling a raise after completing.  
The idea that you should call a preflop raise out of position with any holding because of 3-1 odds seems a bit off.If this were true, then one should defend his BB to any raise in a full ring game. And we all agree that this would not be profitable in the long run.

Quote

Also, if BB is a passive player, it may be correct to limp and then fold certain hands if he raises
I play this situation the same as I would if I were in the BB against a tight UTG raiser.I already have a bet invested (my blind).So if I hold garbage, I will likely toss the hand away.What must be realized is that once we complete from the SB, that money is no longer ours. The fact that we put money into the pot is a sunk cost and should not affect our future decisions.But many players, once they have limped in from the SB and get raised by the BB, run into a wall called pride.Folding at this point seems soft, so they will call the raise regardless of their holdings.In actuality, the error may occur with the fact that we completed from the SB in the first place.But in the example that was given, our opponent in the BB was very passive and we were almost certainly going to see the flop without further cost.Conclusion:In the occasional situation in which you are up against a very loose-passive Big Blind, it may be correct to limp in with poor cards.And it may also be acceptable to then fold to an unusual show of strength from this same passive opponent.Having said that, your read on your opponent better be accurate, or you're throwing money away.And complete-folding on more than the rare occasion shows weakness and will give the rest of your opponents at the table incentive to try to push you around.--cnm




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users