BB v SB and SB v BB

[3 pairs should be a hand]

Ok two scenarios.

1. you are sb and action is folded round to you.

2. you are bb and action is folded to sb who a) completes and b) raises

This is not hand analysis, just to be clear.

This is a strategy question

What do you do in 1 & 2a/2b

[taipan168]

As with everything it depends on a number of factors:
- Stack sizes
- Size of the blinds/antes
- How many players remaining
- Reads on your opponent
- Reads on the other players on the table and their position relative to you
- What hand you have

Very hard to give advice without understanding all of those factors above

[Fielmann]

1.
Mostly fold or raise. Very rarely complete. I might complete when the following conditions apply:
- opponent is passive
- call represents a very small fraction of the effective stack
- I have a weak hand with some potential (mostly small or medium suited cards)

2a&2b
Depends on a bunch of stuff, most notably tournament situation and reads.

[Duffryn]

What they say ^^^^^^^^.

To me, someone completing the SB in most rounds is usually a good indication of a weak player.

[3 pairs should be a hand]

What they say ^^^^^^^^.

To me, someone completing the SB in most rounds is usually a good indication of a weak player.

Not necesssarily

[3 pairs should be a hand]

OK then, I'll add a layer.

As above early, then mid, then high blinds.

And, I think you are all missing the point.

sbvbb and bbvsb is a recurrent situation.

It is also heads up play.

As sb uniquely though you are oop on all streets post as you are pre.
As bb also uniquely you are in position on all streets post as you are pre.

That is one reason why completing from sb is not always weakness. So often weakness is the immediate thought to a complete, when a series of completes could have been made in order to trap on a future complete. Anyone skilled in post flop play will complete eg though they are out of position they have the check raise, the reverse float and so on.

Thoughts now?

[3 pairs should be a hand]

And also sb is getting 3:1 pre, have you considered that?

[taipan168]

As sb uniquely though you are oop on all streets post as you are pre.
As bb also uniquely you are in position on all streets post as you are pre.

Not when you're heads up. In HU, the SB has to act first preflop but gets to act second postflop since SB is the button.

That is one reason why completing from sb is not always weakness. So often weakness is the immediate thought to a complete, when a series of completes could have been made in order to trap on a future complete. Anyone skilled in post flop play will complete eg though they are out of position they have the check raise, the reverse float and so on.

Not always, but the majority of the time it is. One thing that I learned early in my poker career was that in the majority of cases an action means exactly what you think it is, so a limp is weak and a raise is strong.

And also sb is getting 3:1 pre, have you considered that?

But unless it's HU, SB also has to act OOP on all streets, and SB isn't getting 3:1 if BB raises.

[3 pairs should be a hand]

Not when you're heads up. In HU, the SB has to act first preflop but gets to act second postflop since SB is the button.


Not always, but the majority of the time it is. One thing that I learned early in my poker career was that in the majority of cases an action means exactly what you think it is, so a limp is weak and a raise is strong.


But unless it's HU, SB also has to act OOP on all streets, and SB isn't getting 3:1 if BB raises.

I think I am going to have to preview my words and make sure I am being totally clear in future, we are now getting into a discussion on semantics and losing sight of the thread.

It is heads up play because there are only two people left.

I am well aware of the difference between normal heads up play and heads up play in this scenario.

And obviously sb is not getting 3:1 if he is then raised. But that is no different from actual HU either.

Can we please look at strategy not semantics.

[taipan168]

OK, now that we have clarified it all, I am going to have a shot. I will make some assumptions because as I stated above, there are so many factors that need to be taken into consideration:
- Full or near-full table (because if we are on the bubble the ICM effect is heightened)
- More or less starting stacks
- Non-maniac players (both in the blinds and the rest of the table) but with a typical level of aggression (ie. no super tighties)
- For the raise scenario I am assuming a standard raise of 3-4x BB or so unless we are <10x BB in which case I am assuming SB shoves.

Low blinds (level 1 or level 2)
1. I tend to raise the top 40% of or so of hands and complete with hands like low-mid suited connectors but dump the worst 40-50% of hands.
2a. Check about 80%, raise top 20%
2b. 3-bet with JJ+, AQ+, call with pocket pairs 22-TT, KQ and AJ (and maybe ATs) and dump everything else

Mid blinds (level 3 or level 4)
1. I would raise roughly the same hands as in the low blind scenario but dump the hands that I would have limped
2a. Maybe raise top 25-30% to try to steal the blinds
2b. 3-bet with monster hands (QQ+), shove back with roughly 66+, A8s+, ATo+, KQs, fold everything else

High blinds (level 5 and above - ie average stack at 10x BB
1. Shove about top 60-70% of hands, fold the rest
2a. Shove about top 25% of hands and check the rest
2b. Assuming that opp has shoved (and shoves about 70%), I would call with about top 25-30%. Admittedly I usually call tighter than this in game, probably a leak of mine.

[Fielmann]

I'll add a layer.

As above early, then mid, then high blinds.

As a general rule, the bigger the blinds get, the more likely I am to raise in all three cases (1, 2a, 2b). But there are exceptions.

And, I think you are all missing the point.

sbvbb and bbvsb is a recurrent situation.

It is also heads up play.

What makes you think that the people who replied to you missed the point of BvB being a recurrent situation and heads-up?

As sb uniquely though you are oop on all streets post as you are pre.
As bb also uniquely you are in position on all streets post as you are pre.

That is one reason why completing from sb is not always weakness.

I don't get what you mean. SB being oop is a reason against completing.

So often weakness is the immediate thought to a complete, when a series of completes could have been made in order to trap on a future complete. Anyone skilled in post flop play will complete eg though they are out of position they have the check raise, the reverse float and so on.

This sounds like pretty serious FSP (Fancy Play Syndrome). Btw - what's a 'reverse float'?

And also sb is getting 3:1 pre, have you considered that?

I have become quite convinced that pre-flop pot-odds don't count for nearly as much as Harrington once made us believe they do. Yes, you are getting 3:1 now, and no, you are not 3:1 underdog to win the hand if it went straight to showdown. But these numbers don't really matter for anything if opponent raises and he's got four opportunities to do so.

[Duffryn]

At the risk of discussing semantics, I did not say that completing the sb always indicates weaknesses. Always and never are two words that are redundant in poker.

If the BB is a total donk, then if its folded to the SB, a good player is going to want to play the hand, so you might see a lot of completing. But even then I would expect a few raises to be mixed in. And if its not HU, the SB is going to need to be significantly better to outplay a donk BB with the handicap of always being out of position.

At one point I wondered why I seemed to be playing a lot of hands out of position. I looked in Poker Tracker. Answer: calling from the blinds too much because I was getting good odds. So, I strongly agree with this:

I have become quite convinced that pre-flop pot-odds don't count for nearly as much as Harrington once made us believe they do. Yes, you are getting 3:1 now, and no, you are not 3:1 underdog to win the hand if it went straight to showdown. But these numbers don't really matter for anything if opponent raises and he's got four opportunities to do so.

[3 pairs should be a hand]

Thanks guys I hope this discussion continues. I am reading about HU play at the moment.

As always each situation is unique. Just like the break in pool.

What does everyone think to Taipan's hand range suggestion?

A reverse float is the reverse of a float.

What does everyone think to the suggestion that you should ignore the preflop odds?

Being oop is not necessarily a bad thing. You can trap. You can slowplay (trap?). You can be the aggressor. You can 3bet or shove over or 4bet, for instance. And you can do the turn donk lead.

I'll put more words next time I'm on.

By the way, how is FSP fancy play syndrome? lol

[drmcboy]

a reverse float is calling on the flop OOP with nothing or a hand that does not merit a call with the intent of betting the turn or betting the river if the turn goes check check, or I suppose even calling the flop with the plan of c/r the turn. The 'reverse' part comes because you're OOP whereas the standard float would be done IP.

you should not 'ignore' pot odds ever but you also should not make a call on the basis of your hand being less than a 3/1 dog assuming there is substantial money behind. As with any other poker decision pot odds will always play a role. Tai didn't say 'ignore'.

[fulksy]

One thing that I learned early in my poker career was that in the majority of cases an action means exactly what you think it is, so a limp is weak and a raise is strong.

i think this is very important, i had a huge tendency to think people were bluffing way more then the were or slowplaying or what not.

and it relates well to the question, usually completing is weak and i rarely complete when folded to me at any blind level. but i do agree with what everyone its very dependent on the situation.