Hello all, welcome to my online poker blog.

I've been playing on and off for a decade after being introduced by a friend.

I played regularly for a few years during the poker boom and had a decent record at the micros, particularly Rush and Zoom No Limit Hold'em games (here's one of my graphs).

Around 2012 I began a new career which involved immersing myself completely in study in my spare time, so I had little to no time for poker. However recently this burden has eased and so I have been gradually dipping back in.

I'm an amateur player who still hopes to some day beat the rake.

Saturday, 13 March 2010

More thoughts on out of position (OOP) strategy...

Disclaimer: this post is about HU play, in respects it might be relevant to other structures of poker but be aware that this is what Im referring to.
This is the last time Ill talk about this subject I promise :) I suspect that a game theory optimal BB strategy for HU poker (versus a button raise) would contain some percentage of folds, calls and reraises - with some element of mixing to give it balance. An example of mixing would be to reraise with aces most of the time but call occasionally. Were mixing the betting lines we take with the same hand. Ok, now in real life NLHE games currently, I believe that one particular imbalance has given us an option for the BB. Firstly, it has become the norm in NLHE games to continuation bet most flops. This trend has come about because of the imbalance of players folding too much to this bet. I dont think I can remember a player recently who has not c-bet well over half the time. So the original imbalance (players folding too much to c-bets) has created a situation where players will c-bet very often. This is exploitive play, and it works. But exploitive play can be counter exploited because it is not optimal. If we have a strategy where we 3-bet our great hands along with some garbage as bluffs, and call with some percentage of our mediocre hands I think were asking for major trouble. When we call were out of position against a range that - while possibly weaker overall - contains all of our villains strong hands. Instead, suppose we dont 3-bet at all. Were sacrificing value from our strong hands, yes. But were also playing a range that is more closely matched with villain, and it is allowing us to get great value when villain c-bets any two cards and we have a hand like an overpair. Consider the metagame too, if we showdown AA after flatting from the BB, how confident will villain be the next time he c-bets? Chances are well get to see showdown much more cheaply. Just thoughts...

No comments:

Post a Comment