Mike Caro's Small Blind Essay Contest

[Howard Beale]

In the 12/25/06 issue of Poker Player Newspaper Mike Caro's column contains this contestregarding small blind play. Due to the contest rules it's a bit long but I find his main idea to be so surprising (at least to me) that I wanted to post it here and read 2p2's reaction.

From the article:

One of the worst things you can do is routinely raise from the small blind position. I'm not saying you should never raise, but if you do it very often, you're eating away at your bankroll. And I'm not talking about just hold 'em. I'm talking about Omaha high, Omaha high-low, Lowball, and whatever other poker games use the traditional blind structure in the future

and

Now I'm going to tell you the most important thing you can ever learn about playing the small blind: You should usually just call if you have a playable hand, even a fairly strong one. Even if you have a pair of aces to start with in hold 'em, you should often consider just calling. You'll usually overrule this consideration and decide to raise, but a call isn't out of the question. An exception would be if you have a pair of aces and there are at least two other callers already involved in the pot or if the lone caller came from a late position, making your raise seem like a natural power play, whether or not you have a strong hand. Then you should almost always raise.

I do a fair amount of raising from the small blind. If there are a bunch of limpers to me and I see something like Q-Q or A-Ks I almost always raise. If I'm reading Mr. Caro correctly it is the wrong thing to do.

Perhaps some of you would like to enter his contest. I'm not theoretically or mathematically talented enough to try it but I'd like to get a discussion going on it.

[Red_Diamond]

Is he asking for Exceptions, or why you SHOULD routinely call in 250 words. It doesn't seem too clear to me.

[Howard Beale]

[ QUOTE ]
Is he asking for Exceptions, or why you SHOULD routinely call in 250 words. It doesn't seem too clear to me.

[/ QUOTE ]

From my reading it says to look at some exceptions and then explain why routinely calling is the better choice. That's my understanding. Perhaps others will read it differently.

[veggies]

I usually raise in the blinds as well with good pps, however when I have a good drawing hand like AKs I like to just call/check when there are a few limpers because you are in such bad position in later rounds I find it much cheaper to just call. Many of those limpers are more likely to give your raise less respect and many will also call it because they have good position on you. Also your hand is much more hidden if you hit it hard when you just check or complete your sb. It sure is nice hitting the nut flush with AKs when someone in late has hit one limping with TJ or QJ.

[Alfil]

I think it depends on what your definition of is is... or rather routinely. The connotations for routinely open up a lot of different interpretations. Additionally I think a significant paragraph from the article has been omitted pertaining to blind sizes and how that affects decisions from the SB. Online one can encounter a variety of blind sizes that wouldn't be encounted at a B&M so online players have more leeway in how they play the SB. 25NL can have a .10 or .15 SB. A 3/6 game at a B&M might have a 1 or 2 SB whereas online one might find a SB that is exactly 1/2 the big blind.

Obviously the blind sizes doesn't effect the main concept of routinely raising, paticularly with strong hands, but it does have relevance to what "playable" hands can be called. I'm willing to make more loose calls in the SB when it above 50% of the BB than when it is below. However with few exceptions would I simply complete with Aces at my level since I have enough troubles recognizing when I am toast in position than playing them in a multiway pot OOP.

[SplawnDarts]

I don't have any interest in entering the contest, but I believe Caro is correct, at least in the context of limit.

Raising in general acomplishes 1 or 2 things: it gets money in the pot, or it gets people out of the pot. A raise from the SB, or BB if the SB folded, tends to get money in rather than people out since every one has already VP$IP and the pot odds are already maxed out since everyone has had the option to limp.

Now, you want to get money in when you have an edge against the field, and get people out when you have a hand that plays much better heads-up (or with no caller [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]) than multi-way. On that theory, you would want to raise from the blinds when you have an edge on the field. However, there's a problem. You're out of position. So your edge needs to be so big that it negates the positional disadvantage. In my experience, it may well be that only AA and KK have that property.

[ApeAttack]

[ QUOTE ]
In the 12/25/06 issue of Poker Player Newspaper Mike Caro's column contains this contestregarding small blind play. Due to the contest rules it's a bit long but I find his main idea to be so surprising (at least to me) that I wanted to post it here and read 2p2's reaction.

From the article:

One of the worst things you can do is routinely raise from the small blind position. I'm not saying you should never raise, but if you do it very often, you're eating away at your bankroll. And I'm not talking about just hold 'em. I'm talking about Omaha high, Omaha high-low, Lowball, and whatever other poker games use the traditional blind structure in the future

and

Now I'm going to tell you the most important thing you can ever learn about playing the small blind: You should usually just call if you have a playable hand, even a fairly strong one. Even if you have a pair of aces to start with in hold 'em, you should often consider just calling. You'll usually overrule this consideration and decide to raise, but a call isn't out of the question. An exception would be if you have a pair of aces and there are at least two other callers already involved in the pot or if the lone caller came from a late position, making your raise seem like a natural power play, whether or not you have a strong hand. Then you should almost always raise.

I do a fair amount of raising from the small blind. If there are a bunch of limpers to me and I see something like Q-Q or A-Ks I almost always raise. If I'm reading Mr. Caro correctly it is the wrong thing to do.

Perhaps some of you would like to enter his contest. I'm not theoretically or mathematically talented enough to try it but I'd like to get a discussion going on it.

[/ QUOTE ]


I wonder what limit (2/4? 20/40?) Caro is thinking about? At the low limits, I would think that it is almost ALWAYS a good idea to raise with JJ-AA,AK in a limped pot. The only exceptions I could think of are:
(1) If you play with the same people every day and they pay attention, you may once in a blue moon limp with a monster to throw off everyone.
(2) If you think the BB will raise, limp/reraise in the SB with a monster.
(3) You have a semi-strong hand like JJ in the SB or BB. You know that other players are very passive and straight-forward. The button will bet if checked to on the flop and you will go for a checkraise on a non-scary flop.

I don't have much experience with PokerTracker, so I don't know how feasible the following is:
Does anyone have any stats from Poker Tracker, examining only the times you raise with JJ-AA, AKs in the SB and BB? What is your profit (or losses)? Unless you play terribly, I would imagine it would be +EV to always raise.

[defence18]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't have any interest in entering the contest, but I believe Caro is correct, at least in the context of limit.

Raising in general acomplishes 1 or 2 things: it gets money in the pot, or it gets people out of the pot. A raise from the SB, or BB if the SB folded, tends to get money in rather than people out since every one has already VP$IP and the pot odds are already maxed out since everyone has had the option to limp.

Now, you want to get money in when you have an edge against the field, and get people out when you have a hand that plays much better heads-up (or with no caller [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]) than multi-way. On that theory, you would want to raise from the blinds when you have an edge on the field. However, there's a problem. You're out of position. So your edge needs to be so big that it negates the positional disadvantage. In my experience, it may well be that only AA and KK have that property.

[/ QUOTE ]

Very well said. As I was reading the thread, I couldn't believe that no one had touched on positional play yet. To me this is the most prominent, and possibly only reason Caro makes these claims. Also, I certainly agree with Caro in limit play, but feel that NL play may not necessarily apply here. In NL, you can put some serious pressure on the other players with a raise from the SB.

[SplawnDarts]

[ QUOTE ]

Very well said. As I was reading the thread, I couldn't believe that no one had touched on positional play yet. To me this is the most prominent, and possibly only reason Caro makes these claims. Also, I certainly agree with Caro in limit play, but feel that NL play may not necessarily apply here. In NL, you can put some serious pressure on the other players with a raise from the SB.

[/ QUOTE ]

NL is definitly a different ball game. You certainly can size raises to get people out of the hand if that's the goal. The price of doing so, however, is somtimes very high, and the risk of encountering someone who has you beat and won't get out at any price is there, especially if you're raising a bit light and the game is kind of donkish.

Another thought is that the positional advantage is increased in NL. I'm not at all sure I WANT to get in, even with better cards, on the wrong end of position. A good player might well be able to overcome the card advantage against me. I'm so used to making the opposite play, namely getting money in with position but a cards disadvantage that I've never spent much time figuring out how I'd play the other side, other than the obvious idea of a big raise with AA or KK from the blinds.

[Howard Beale]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I don't have any interest in entering the contest, but I believe Caro is correct, at least in the context of limit.

Raising in general acomplishes 1 or 2 things: it gets money in the pot, or it gets people out of the pot. A raise from the SB, or BB if the SB folded, tends to get money in rather than people out since every one has already VP$IP and the pot odds are already maxed out since everyone has had the option to limp.

Now, you want to get money in when you have an edge against the field, and get people out when you have a hand that plays much better heads-up (or with no caller [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]) than multi-way. On that theory, you would want to raise from the blinds when you have an edge on the field. However, there's a problem. You're out of position. So your edge needs to be so big that it negates the positional disadvantage. In my experience, it may well be that only AA and KK have that property.

[/ QUOTE ]

Very well said. As I was reading the thread, I couldn't believe that no one had touched on positional play yet. To me this is the most prominent, and possibly only reason Caro makes these claims. Also, I certainly agree with Caro in limit play, but feel that NL play may not necessarily apply here. In NL, you can put some serious pressure on the other players with a raise from the SB.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think Mr. Caro's thinking very much about position. Notice that he only addresses the SB instead of THE blinds. I think he's thinking along the lines of the extra money it costs to raise from that position instead of the BB. His use of 'routinely' must count for something also.