The pretend (preflop) blinds and the real (position based) blinds

[untouchable]

[ QUOTE ]
Incidentally I was just discussing with NoahSD earlier how I 3-bet hands like AQ and TT less then some other hands like 89s or A7s from the blinds vs tags/good lags that raise with position.

I feel like 3-betting turns these mid-high strength hands into bluffs too often, and actually is lower EV than just calling (factoring in shania also).

I'm not really sure how relevant this is to the OP but it's a little mini-ephiphany I had about preflop situations today. Does this make sense to anyone?

[/ QUOTE ]

Makes a lot of sense to me. I have been reraising these hands, but let's say you have TT. You reraise in the BB, cbet any flop, and are raised. Without a good read, you have to fold here every time, because JJ+, as well as lower sets, are in villain's range. If villain just calls flop you have to be very, very careful too, even if there are no cards higher than T on the board.
So you're basically hoping he folds every time...

This reminds me of a thought I had yesterday. I thought that in stead of reraising something like 99+ or TT+, it would be better to reraise QQ+ and 22-44. Anyone agree?

[Requin]

[ QUOTE ]
This reminds me of a thought I had yesterday. I thought that in stead of reraising something like 99+ or TT+, it would be better to reraise QQ+ and 22-44. Anyone agree?

[/ QUOTE ] Depends on the aggressiveness of the game and how good villain is. Basically if villain is bad and/or predictable hands like TT become easier to play in an unraised pot (you can c/c a flop with 1 over and fold to a turn bet ect) and so I'm happier just calling it. Vs. a good player, TT OOP with relatively deepish stacks due to not reraising is harder to play. Also, the more aggressive the button opener (some people open a huge range from there) the more likely I am to repop tens. This is because I'm repopping alot more hands to counter his agressiveness and if villain chooses to play back at me in a serious way alot of it will be through rebluffs rather than waiting for a real hand. Waiting won't really work in the long run since the real hands compose such a small part of his button opening range. So I will be mpore likely to repop tens when doing so doesn't turn them into air, i.e. when I'm more able to play them for value as an overpair postflop. So the higher you play, the better your opponents and the more likely they open alot from the button, the more you should be popping tens. And be more likely to call with them vs. an opponent who is tighter from the button.

Essentially its best to keep your range to nuts-or-bluff like you suggested, but the higher you go the more often TT is the nuts.

[Requin]

Dan I'm not sure about your argument for opening based on stack % instead of absolute size of the blinds. It makes sense to some extent, but there has to be a line. I don't think even with position you could outplay aces that put 4% of its stack in preflop. Obviously he won't have aces every time, but you see the point... he can tighten up to the point where his preflop advantage over you will not be made up by your positional advantage postflop.

[Jeff W]

[ QUOTE ]
I think we are really only pretending to fight for the blinds in nl cash game play. What we are really fighting for, is edges based on a % of stack sizes. For example, if I make almost all my money on the CO and the Button, why am I folding 58s to a raise in that position? On the button and in the co you ARE paying a blind. That blind is the money, as expressed as a % of stack sizes and modified/altered based on both the relatively quality of your opponent and lastly the quality of your hands, that you give up by folding it.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you're obscuring the matter. It's easier to just think in terms of +EV/-EV instead of "Invisible blinds of %Edges based on Stack Size..." and they mean the same thing. My opponent raises to 3.5 BB in the CO and I have JTs, the only consideration is: are my implied odds good enough to show a profit here?

The reason online NL poker seems like it's not a struggle for the antes is because people play too many hands given the size of the ante. Their pre flop looseness creates a chain reaction which allows you to play more hands to take advantage of their mistakes. A table where everyone was playing correctly would be very tight indeed compared to the games we know and love.

[amoeba]

I agree wholeheartedly and think this is a good post.

The varying your preflop raise size thing could get tricky if you have a mix of stack sizes at your table.

[My_Name_Is_Hov]

I disagree with increasing your raise sizes just because you are deeper. The only time I think it would be a good idea is if some very strong players had position on you with +200bb's. By increasing your standard raise size to 8bb assuming you and your oponents are 200bb's deep decreases your edge greatly. By increasing your raise size there will be far less postflop decisions to make thus decreasing your edge.

[KingDan]

I think nits will make more if you are opening to 7x.

I think continuing to open to 40 or whatever is fine just adjust your range.

[smartalecc5]

Interesting, but your last sentence said raising TAGs on the flop = money. I thought your post talked about preflop play?

[luckychewy]

[ QUOTE ]
Interesting, but your last sentence said raising TAGs on the flop = money. I thought your post talked about preflop play?

[/ QUOTE ]

preflop play and post flop play have an uncanny resemblence!

[Fight Club]

[ QUOTE ]
I think some tags (2p2rs) look at my stats and have all the wrong assumptions about my play. They seem to expect me to be a lot more aggressive preflop than I really am and generally play back far too much postflop in 3bet pots given my range (Whihc against many ppl, in most situations save for hu in the blinds is almost always something silly-tight like jj+ aqs+). I guess thats sort of a reminder that pokertracker stats only tell you the numbers, they dont tel you what they mean.

[/ QUOTE ]

this has always been a bit of a leak for me, people just dont understand what your doing.