Defending the Big Blind...is it even necessary to look at your cards?

[BeDoHave]

[ QUOTE ]
So. The opponent always raises on the button and always bets the flop when checked to. It may be the case that 72o will win one time in 4, but that's only if there is no more betting and hands are show down. Certainly this particular hand will be folded most of the time on the flop, denying yourself 2 chances to snag an otherwise winning pair.

Thus, bad hands will not actually win their hot and cold "fair share", thus that statistic is not that useful.

You are better off chosing a more realistic proportion of hands to defend, such as half of them. You won't win half the pots but will win more money overall since you will not only start with a better hand you'll have the other guy betting into you.

- Louie

[/ QUOTE ]Ok. So if you only choose 50% of hands to defend, how do you choose which 50% of hands? If you say the top 50% of hands, well then now you're playing more predictable...while OOP. You might as well wait for the top 25% of hands and play them all like Aces.

I can't figure out who does better in the blinds long term, someone who defends ultra-liberally (80+%), or someone who rarely defends (<20%). I suspect the person who does the worst in the blinds is the third person...who selectively defends based on hand strength.

[Scary_Tiger]

Play your hand.

[LadyWrestler]

[ QUOTE ]
72o or AA...does it matter?

From a "defending your BB against an obvious steal" sort of game theory standpoint?

Aren't you just going to be playing the counter-strategy to his hand, not dependent on your own hand strength?

Is there anyone that does this already (defends the BB without looking at his own cards)?

I think it sounds fun and will try it the next time I play live.

[/ QUOTE ]

I can only tell you how I look at it: Preflop, my stack, my position, and the pot, are what they are AFTER the blinds are posted...no matter who posted them. The rest now belongs TO the pot. If someone bets, I then decide to fold, check (if that option is available, i.e. when I am in the BB position), call, or raise.

I did not always look at it that way, but my bottom line has improved since I started looking at it that way.

Have a great day! [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[jimpo]

[ QUOTE ]
Ok. So if you only choose 50% of hands to defend, how do you choose which 50% of hands? If you say the top 50% of hands, well then now you're playing more predictable...while OOP. You might as well wait for the top 25% of hands and play them all like Aces.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't see how playing top 50% hands would be playing too predictacle. Your opponent will be able to say "aha, he called, he doesn't have 72o", but that does not give too much an edge to him. Top 50% of hands is still such a huge number that it won't help putting you on a hand much.

[AlanBostick]

[ QUOTE ]
Bill Chen advocates, or at least used to advocate, always defending one's blind. I take Bill seriously, but my gut tells me it's wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

For what it's worth, Bill just won the $3K Limit Hold'em event at the WSOP. Did he always defend his big blind against a steal? I dunno.

[Leptyne]

Thanks. It was not obvious and I was going to reply based on NL theory.

[Louie Landale]

When I say 50% of the hands, yes I mean the top 50%. Playing a random 50% would be rediculous, as would playing perhaps every other hand or every odd numbered hand on the hand ranking charts. I don't see your objection about being "predictable".

As for your 25%: that is actually the correct strategy against a hyper aggressive player that you cannot control but who has sense to fold. Yes, play them like Aces against this sort of player: check-call, check-call, check-call or check-raise the river.

- Louie

[arete]

no

[Louie Landale]

Just out of curiosity. If there were no blinds nor antes and the opponent always bets three bets and says you only need to call one, would you call that one bet with any two cards knowing you are out of position for the rest of the hand?