Why does having the initiative matter?

[tommo]

if a laggy player raises on the button, and a tight player calls in the big blind. The tight player has a much strong hand range. So why does it matter that the laggy player has the initiative?

I understand that position is very important. If you want you can change the example to: a laggy player raises first in in the small blind, a very tight player calls in the big blind. Why does it matter that the lag has the initiative?

[Nightfall123]

Noone really wants to take a shot at this so ill give it a try...

I think the point is that when the flop comes down 10 3 2 or some trash like that the LAG said he had a good hand preflop and if the TAG has something like an AJ or KQ its hard to continue on a flop like this. The LAG could have any two cards but because the TAG missed its easy for the LAG to pick up the pot, unless the TAG starts to adjust by floating or bluffraising the LAG will win every pot in which the TAG misses just by having the iniative

[LucidDream]

having a strong hand preflop that isn't so strong postflop sucks when villain has the betting lead and position.

[tommo]

[ QUOTE ]
having a strong hand preflop that isn't so strong postflop sucks when villain has the betting lead and position.

[/ QUOTE ]

position makes good physical sense.

betting lead does not. please explain why betting lead matters (I took this to mean he bet most recently, which is what I meant by initiative).

[KingGordy]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
having a strong hand preflop that isn't so strong postflop sucks when villain has the betting lead and position.

[/ QUOTE ]

position makes good physical sense.

betting lead does not. please explain why betting lead matters (I took this to mean he bet most recently, which is what I meant by initiative).

[/ QUOTE ]

It matters because other people treat it like it matters. Even if it's not physically real or whatever, people are going to play differently postflop depending on whether or not they have the initiative, and they are going to respond to your actions differently depending on whether or not you had the initiative.

[LucidDream]

you raise AQo from btn. i 3 bet AQo from BB.

flop: 952r

i bet 70% pot. who wins this hand more assuming straight forward play for the sake of "importance of betting lead" argument...me or you?

[tommo]

[ QUOTE ]
you raise AQo from btn. i 3 bet AQo from BB.

flop: 952r

i bet 70% pot. who wins this hand more assuming straight forward play for the sake of "importance of betting lead" argument...me or you?

[/ QUOTE ]

This shows that it does matter. It does not explain why it matters. King's response is a pretty good one I think.

To exploit other players we try to take advantage of their misconceptions. This initiative thing seems like a misconception to me. It also seems like there are a lot of good ways to take advantage of it.

[kotkis]

It doesn't.

[Jurrr]

I think it is purely psychological, but it works. People play more aggro with initiative, as they assume their opponents will give them more credit. Since they will play more aggro, you will experience more variance when playing against those with initiative, which may make some more timid without it.

[Dan BRIGHT]

I don't seem to post much really good stuff anymore ie mini-essays, but here's a tongue and cheek answer that if you think about for a while it will make the whole idea of initiative crystal:

Initiative only matters as much as it defines EACH players hand range. Consider this with the ideas of preflop raising 3 betting and 4 betting ranges,and constantly changing (aka dynamic) metagames.... Suddenly things aren't so clear - but that means you're thinking better!