When you don't care if a bluff gets called.

[dsaxton]

I thought this was an interesting hand.

I get bet into in an unraised pot from the blinds by a relatively unknown player. It's unlikely he has a very strong hand since he's in the small blind, so I decide to make a raise bluff, but he calls quickly. On the turn, rather than make a substantial bluff, I made what was almost more of a value bet, as I know he probably can't call a big river bluff. If he raises, I fold immediately, but I don't really even mind if I get called, as this reinforces the idea that he's weak (next to folding), and actually makes my hand appear stronger. He calls, and I take it down on the river as expected:

PokerStars No-Limit Hold'em, $2 BB (6 handed) FTR converter on zerodivide.cx

MP ($240.25)
CO ($142.35)
Button ($113.95)
SB ($143.95)
BB ($193.95)
Hero ($184)

Preflop: Hero is UTG with A, 4.
Hero calls $2, 2 folds, Button calls $2, SB completes, BB checks.

Flop: ($8) 3, 2, 7 (4 players)
SB bets $6, BB folds, Hero raises to $18, Button folds, SB calls $12.

Turn: ($44) 9 (2 players)
SB checks, Hero bets $22, SB calls $22.

River: ($88) J (2 players)
SB checks, Hero bets $80, SB folds.

Final Pot: $168

[Warpe]

...It's unlikely he has a very strong hand since he's in the small blind...

NH.

Question: I've never really understood why players discount what the blinds are holding as routinely as you do with your statement here, especially the small blind. Yes, they're not in the hand voluntarily, yet, and may decide to play less than optimal holdings for that reason, but I've read statements in some poker articles where players act as if the blinds aren't even a consideration. Thoughts on this? Being in the blinds does not, ipso facto, reduce the odds that a player could have a strong hand. I can see how it would/does encourage play with weaker holdings out of the BB, but do you think this is true of the SB as well?

[dsaxton]

If you assume the player is completing the small blind with anything remotely playable, and that he/she will almost always bet out after flopping top pair, will sometimes bet out with stronger hands but often check them (a common tendency at this level), I'd say his/her most likely hand is top pair with a weak kicker when he/she completes from the small blind, then bets out on the flop. But, this is more based on experience and intuition than some kind of real calculation.

Besides, even if this player flopped two pair (which is highly unlikely) he'll have a hard time calling, as I'm representing a set.

[Warpe]

Hmmm. Guess I'm projecting what I do in the small blind as opposed to what others do. I try to act like it doesn't exist, and treat completing as if I'm deciding whether I'm calling a min-raise. Keeps me out of trouble.

[zenbitz]

Well, it's easier to discount the SB completing when you don't hold crap like A4s (not that A4 is a bad hand in 6max).

I like your line, because I bet overpair/TPGK/two pair/set exactly the same. Probably he is more afraid of the overpair than a set here. 2 more over cards to the board probably don't make him feel that comfortable.

[Demiparadigm]

Hmmm. Guess I'm projecting what I do in the small blind as opposed to what others do. I try to act like it doesn't exist, and treat completing as if I'm deciding whether I'm calling a min-raise. Keeps me out of trouble.

This is completely silly. I complete with any 2 in the small blind in a multiway unraised pot.

There is a huge difference between calling half a big blind, and calling a raise, even a small one.

Think of it in the same light as the "10x rule" for small pairs (which I have issue with, but that's beyond the scope) You are immediately getting x to 1 on your money where x= 2*#players +1
Then in implied odds, completing requires you to put in 1/200th of your stack or so.
So combine your immediate odds, and your "200 to 1" implied odds to flop a monster, and then consider what range is not worth completing.

[DaNutsInYoEye]

Hmmm. Guess I'm projecting what I do in the small blind as opposed to what others do. I try to act like it doesn't exist, and treat completing as if I'm deciding whether I'm calling a min-raise. Keeps me out of trouble.

This is completely silly. I complete with any 2 in the small blind in a multiway unraised pot.

I disagree. In limit perhaps, but not always in NL.

[Demiparadigm]

Hmmm. Guess I'm projecting what I do in the small blind as opposed to what others do. I try to act like it doesn't exist, and treat completing as if I'm deciding whether I'm calling a min-raise. Keeps me out of trouble.

This is completely silly. I complete with any 2 in the small blind in a multiway unraised pot.

I disagree. In limit perhaps, but not always in NL.

I disagree. You should be folding a lot more hands from the small blind in limit, since your implied odds aren't there. You can play a lot more hands profitably in NL.

[DaNutsInYoEye]

You face harder decisions with marginal hands in NL than you do limit.

[Demiparadigm]

You face harder decisions with marginal hands in NL than you do limit.

My goal playing poker is not to avoid tough decisions, or lower my variance, it is to win money.
The more good decisions I get to make, however marginal, the more money I make.

[dsaxton]

Yeah. You won't be faced with many difficult decisions playing J-3 offsuit in the small blind in a limit game, but you also don't expect to make any money.

[Aces]

You face harder decisions with marginal hands in NL than you do limit.

My goal playing poker is not to avoid tough decisions, or lower my variance, it is to win money.
The more good decisions I get to make, however marginal, the more money I make.

Keeping tough decisions to a minimum is of importance for me when multitabling(NL). For me it's more +EV to make fewer/easier decisions then more/difficult decisions. Also keeps me out of situations where I've got multiple difficult decisions on >1 table and would be more likely to make a mistake.

[Fnord]

It's conforting to see somone else over-play hands