blind play article

[jogsxyz]

Tysen Strieb,

Are you reading this forum? I'm not convinced. Have you seen the Weideman RGP challenge problem? In the solution the caller's range was wider than of the bettor's range. SB should jam with some nonsense hands. 32o and the like. This will get BB honest. Now BB will need to call with more hands or be runover.

jogs

[trojanrabbit]

[ QUOTE ]
Tysen Strieb,

Are you reading this forum? I'm not convinced. Have you seen the Weideman RGP challenge problem? In the solution the caller's range was wider than of the bettor's range. SB should jam with some nonsense hands. 32o and the like. This will get BB honest. Now BB will need to call with more hands or be runover.

jogs

[/ QUOTE ]

jogs,

Sorry for the late reply. For some reason I had never looked at this thread until now. I just searched for the Weideman problem over in RGP, and I'm assuming your talking about the one where both players are given a number between 0 and 100. There are a couple reasons why that does not translate directly into a pre-flop holdem problem.

First in a [0,100] game or [0,1] game for that matter, the higher number always wins a showdown. If I have 57 and you have 56, I win 100% of the time. For pre-flop holdem the better two-card hand doesn't always win. Therefore there is no incentive to "bluff with your worst hands." There is no point in bluffing with 32o or 72o since you can bluff with 65s instead and have a better chance of winning.

The other difference between the two games is that in the [0,100] game the first player can check and force a showdown. This gives no incentive for the first player to bet his medium strength hands since he can just force a showdown rather than betting and only getting called when he's likely a loser.

Tysen