|
|
#2
08-13-2006, 04:44 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: posting bb when entering table
Posting out of position with a random hand and no information is -EV.
Posting on the cut-off is mildly acceptable. Waiting for the BB is the correct way to do it. While waiting for the BB use the time to watch the table closely and see if you can pick up on something useful. There. Now you're not wasting time but are being constructive. 
|
|
#4
08-14-2006, 04:07 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: posting bb when entering table
[ QUOTE ]
... but it's -EV for sure. [/ QUOTE ] No way. For a good player, posting in the CO is clearly profitable. If you have PokerTracker, you should be able to see that posting in the CO will cost somewhat less than 0.1 BB on average. A good player will easily make that up in the positions between the CO and the blinds. The breakeven point may be ~MP1, but whatever. If you want to wait, then wait. If you want to get into the game, then post and play.
|
|
#5
08-14-2006, 11:06 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: posting bb when entering table
This has been hashed out repeatedly and the "general" consensus is that posting in CO is NOT -EV. However, I believe that most of that comes from times when it is folded to you and you can raise and steal the blinds. This doesn't occur often at the nanos, so posting in CO at those limits or in games where there are usually 3-4 players to the flop is probably not +EV, or only very marginally so.
My rule of thumb is post in CO at a FULL TABLE ONLY, with NO PLAYERS SITTING OUT. I only post in the CO, any other position, and I'll wait for BB.
|
|
#6
08-14-2006, 02:57 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: posting bb when entering table
[ QUOTE ]
This has been hashed out repeatedly and the "general" consensus is that posting in CO is NOT -EV. [/ QUOTE ] Yes, but consensus isn't required. Since few people have large PT databases, consider the PokerRoom stats. (I imported the numbers into Excel to get the values I report below.) The average player loses .22 BB/100 in the big blind. So posting in the CO cannot cost more than this amount. Since you are posting in late position, and that has some value compared to the big blind, the actual cost is less than .22 BB/100. We can roughly estimate the value of position as the EV difference between the UTG and CO positions, which is about 0.07 BB/100. So for an average player, posting in the CO will cost about 0.15 BB/100. For a good player, the cost of posting will be significantly less. The average player wins about 0.03 BB/100 in the CO. I'm not sure what an average winrate in the CO is for a winning player, but I'm pretty sure it's more than 0.1 BB/100. So the difference between a good player and the average is at least .07 BB/100. This means that the cost of posting for a good player is at most 0.08 BB/100. [ QUOTE ] However, I believe that most of that comes from times when it is folded to you and you can raise and steal the blinds. This doesn't occur often at the nanos, so posting in CO at those limits or in games where there are usually 3-4 players to the flop is probably not +EV, or only very marginally so. [/ QUOTE ] A good player can make a lot more, in BB/100, at nanos than at higher levels. Every hand played against bad players has greater expectation than against good players. This is harder to show quantitatively, but my guess is that posting in the nanos is even more profitable (in BB/100) than in larger games.
|
|
#7
08-14-2006, 04:52 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: posting bb when entering table
[ QUOTE ]
This has been hashed out repeatedly... [/ QUOTE ] Precisely. So all I'm going to say is, IF YOU THINK I'M GOING TO WAIT SEVEN HANDS IN THE FOXWOODS $1-2 WITH A $10/HOUR TIME CHARGE, YOU'RE CRAZY. I'm of the opinion that, against bad players, the substantial postflop implied odds offered by virtually any hand make it worthwhile to see six or seven (or three or four) hands for the price of a blind. I'll post well into middle position if I think the game is very loose postflop.
|
|
#8
08-14-2006, 08:10 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: posting bb when entering table
Nice analysis UDevil.
[ QUOTE ] A good player can make a lot more, in BB/100, at nanos than at higher levels. Every hand played against bad players has greater expectation than against good players. This is harder to show quantitatively, but my guess is that posting in the nanos is even more profitable (in BB/100) than in larger games. [/ QUOTE ] A good player can make more in the nanos partly because he has higher starting hand standards than his opponents. I don't think that two random cards make up that much against loose/poor players. I would think that posting in CO loses EV as the the table goes from extremely tight to average, and gains EV as it the table loosens up beyond ~3-4 players/flop. Obviously there are many more factors that can be considered as well.
|
|
#9
08-14-2006, 09:29 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: posting bb when entering table
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] ... but it's -EV for sure. [/ QUOTE ] No way. For a good player, posting in the CO is clearly profitable. [/ QUOTE ] Since his post said: [ QUOTE ] with a random hand in a bad position, [/ QUOTE ] Is the CO now considered a bad position?
|
|
#10
08-15-2006, 03:50 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: posting bb when entering table
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] ... but it's -EV for sure. [/ QUOTE ] No way. For a good player, posting in the CO is clearly profitable. [/ QUOTE ] Since his post said: [ QUOTE ] with a random hand in a bad position, [/ QUOTE ] Is the CO now considered a bad position? [/ QUOTE ] The original question was whether or not it is profitable to post outside the blinds. I interpreted the quoted post to mean that the answer to that question is "No." Hence I argued that posting in the CO is profitable to show that this view is wrong. If tomtemor meant something other than that, then I'm sorry I quoted his post in making my point. Bad position in this context means a position from which you cannot make up the money you lose by posting. So the CO is not a bad position. If you were good enough, even UTG wouldn't be bad position.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
