Re: Poker Theory: Position and Blind Defence
 

Sorry, my question was not specific enough. That I know, but what does it actually mean? Or is it just some kind of fantasy name someone made up out of nowhere?

Sugar Nut

Re: Poker Theory: Position and Blind Defence
 

[ QUOTE ]
I am a position nit. For the longest time I would not defend my blinds. Finally, though, I started realizing that it isn't hard to figure out who is raising light from LP and then 3bettting them.

If you 3bet you aren't going to end up playing out of position because you usually aren't called. And when you ARE called you'll have a monster pot in which you'll have first bluffing position, which actually isn't bad. I mean, the value of position is information, but once you are in a HU pot with stacks very short relative to the blinds information is much less valuable than aggression. It's not like villain will easily be able to float you when he'll have to push the turn just to make a credible bluff.

You'll be able to force villain to make a stack decision without committing your own, and acting first in such a situation often gives you a better chance to win the pot than acting second.

[/ QUOTE ]

I've been thinking about this concept lately. This reasoning has lead to me 3-bet semi-bluffing a little lighter against potential blind stealers. I haven't got my own reasoning thought through well enough to explain it though.

Re: Poker Theory: Position and Blind Defence
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I am a position nit. For the longest time I would not defend my blinds. Finally, though, I started realizing that it isn't hard to figure out who is raising light from LP and then 3bettting them.

If you 3bet you aren't going to end up playing out of position because you usually aren't called. And when you ARE called you'll have a monster pot in which you'll have first bluffing position, which actually isn't bad. I mean, the value of position is information, but once you are in a HU pot with stacks very short relative to the blinds information is much less valuable than aggression. It's not like villain will easily be able to float you when he'll have to push the turn just to make a credible bluff.

You'll be able to force villain to make a stack decision without committing your own, and acting first in such a situation often gives you a better chance to win the pot than acting second.

[/ QUOTE ]

I've been thinking about this concept lately. This reasoning has lead to me 3-bet semi-bluffing a little lighter against potential blind stealers. I haven't got my own reasoning thought through well enough to explain it though.

[/ QUOTE ]FWIW, the value of "first bluffing position" is well known to tournament players, which is where I got my start. It's important in tournaments because usually you're playing so short that a half pot bet can easily force villain to commit his stack just to find out if you are bluffing or not. Playing with 100BB stacks, you usually don't have this kind of leverage. 3bet pots, though, can have this same dynamic I've found. Also, I think bigger pots lessen the value of position because you'll have less to go on by the time you have to make your commitment decisions.