The pretend (preflop) blinds and the real (position based) blinds - Page 11

Dan BRIGHT · #**101** 10-29-2006, 10:54 PM

[ QUOTE ]
well i got up to aejone's dad post.

dan's op has to be a joke. no other explanation.

[/ QUOTE ]

Its not a joke its just some thoughts.

If I'm wrong in some places I want ppl to tell me how and where I am wrong.

#**102** 10-29-2006, 10:56 PM

DAVID SKLANKSY KNOWS MORE THAN ANY OF YOU

SA125 · #**103** 10-29-2006, 11:16 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Some parts of this post is good, some parts are very wrong.

Edit: I am too drunk to point explain which parts are what.

[/ QUOTE ]

To me, the only part that was noteworthy was about coldcalling the button for pot control. But I think it goes a step further than just on the button. A good example is a hand Praetor posted about 3 betting with AQs from the BB vs what was a possible steal. I don't want to hijack this, but you'll miss the flop more often than not and keeping the lead oop with a continuation bet into a pot you inflated isn't such a great thing.

The point that tried to make sense where there is none was about opening ranges with different stack sizes. The reality is that it's all player/game dependent. I play a lot live with stacks that always range 100-400 deep and there's no rule. It depends on who's doing the opening.

For me it depends on my hand, image, position, how the game's been playing, how many callers I want, how many will call just about any decent amount (yes, they exist), whether I'm changing gears, etc. For them, it depends on who it is, pure and simple.

I vary my opening range for deception. I look at how many callers I figure to get, how much that puts in the pot, how much I have and what kind of hand and position I have. Then I have an idea of how much I should open for. Not just x amount of stack or x amount of BB = x amount of open.

aejones · #**104** 10-29-2006, 11:31 PM

"A good example is a hand Praetor posted about 3 betting with AQs from the BB vs what was a possible steal. I don't want to hijack this, but you'll miss the flop more often than not and keeping the lead oop with a continuation bet into a pot you inflated isn't such a great thing."

Are you serious?

Dan BRIGHT · #**105** 10-30-2006, 01:27 AM

It seems that the majority of this thread is discussing whether opening based on stack sizes is a good idea. If its not, how do you change your preflop ranges based on stack sizes? I know when I'm playing against shorties I want more hands with high card strength and/or pps.... but against deep players? Is it worth it to only wait for hands that have "big hand value" like scs AKs pps etc? If you are waiting, in the mean time you might be giving a lot of pots away since your opponent knows that lots of the high face cards are simply not being played by you.

It seems no one has really touched on the idea that each position has a natural +xx.xx ptb/100 modifier based on it that is sort of like a blind in itself. This I think was the most interesting part to me.

LearnedfromTV · #**106** 10-30-2006, 01:47 AM

[ QUOTE ]
It seems no one has really touched on the idea that each position has a natural +xx.xx ptb/100 modifier based on it that is sort of like a blind in itself. This I think was the most interesting part to me.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm trying to conceptualize this and I don't think I get it. 5/10 game. The SB posts $5 and the BB posts $10. The other four positions, by virtue of being dealt in and not having to post, should have positive expectation. To put round figures on it, say UTG and MP both have $1/hand, CO and BN have $2/hand, leaving SB and BB with like $3 and $6 respectively (I'm sure these #'s are wrong but whatever). But how do you express those figures as blinds? Do you mean that BN in a sense posts a -$2 blind? But he only gets the benefit of his position if he plays his hand...

Separate thought, what I think might be interesting is to compare the regular setup to a game where everyone antes $2.50 (thinking in terms of the position tax or whatever you want to call it)... clearly the SB/BB posting when in the worst position acts as kind of a buffer that lets them/forces them to play more hands than they would in an ante structure.

Triumph36 · #**107** 10-30-2006, 01:48 AM

[ QUOTE ]
It seems that the majority of this thread is discussing whether opening based on stack sizes is a good idea. If its not, how do you change your preflop ranges based on stack sizes? I know when I'm playing against shorties I want more hands with high card strength and/or pps.... but against deep players? Is it worth it to only wait for hands that have "big hand value" like scs AKs pps etc? If you are waiting, in the mean time you might be giving a lot of pots away since your opponent knows that lots of the high face cards are simply not being played by you.

It seems no one has really touched on the idea that each position has a natural +xx.xx ptb/100 modifier based on it that is sort of like a blind in itself. This I think was the most interesting part to me.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is kind of a meta-consideration, but playing against good opponents who have position on you and are deep seems very bad to me.

However, playing in position, it doesn't matter how big your open is since you get to control the pot size.

yvesaint · #**108** 10-30-2006, 01:51 AM

there is no way raising pf in relation to STACK SIZES rather than BLIND SIZES is the better play....

valtaherra · #**109** 10-30-2006, 02:15 AM

[ QUOTE ]
For those who are saying "LOL this strat works fine when others play along," notice that your entire strategy relies on the assumption that your opponents are retarded and won't adjust their strategy to exploit your GINORMOUS PREFLOP ERROR

[/ QUOTE ]

Ever played a live $1/2 or $2/5 NL game?

"Others playing along" is exactly what happens when the standard opening becomes $15-20 in a $1/2 game.

Opening preflop is essentially an open challenge: "I've got a hand, who wants to play some poker?" and the blinds are disregarded.

valtaherra · #**110** 10-30-2006, 02:30 AM

Dan,

Good post.

Your post is predicated upon splitting the game of poker into two distinct phases - preflop, where optimal play is weaktight, and postflop, where optimal play suddenly becomes TAG/LAG.

I feel that this is a frequently incorrect and arbitrary division. You could make the same post and describe pre-turn and post-turn play, and it would make (almost) as much sense.

If you view a hand of poker as one continuous flow, where streets are simply deposits of information, the flop being the largest, then what you are advocating is essentially missed value bets.