Playing BB against sure raise(LimCash)

[martial]

1.What basic strategy in BB would you employ preflop and postflop against a guy who will raise every button?(That is all you know about him.)
2.What would you look for in his game,and how will you modify your strategy?

[ClevelandWasp]

1. Fold more with mediocre holdings. When you do play, re-raise and cap if you can.

2. Pay attention to how villain reacts; see what you can pick up and proceed accordingly. When in doubt, check/call to showdown. You are usually a decent favorite because of your pre-flop manipulation.

3. After playing a few hands by the book, mix things up (raise with lesser cards, call some)so that villain can't read you too well.

4. Don't freak out if villain zooms up 20 or 30 bb's right off the bat. The math of the world will usually catch up to these maniacs after a while. Sometimes they will eject early but (surprisingly) often they stick around until you break them.

HU LimCash is full of idiots like this who think they can win merely by being maniacs. Make them pay for their stupidity.

[creedofhubris]

[ QUOTE ]
1. Fold more with mediocre holdings. When you do play, re-raise and cap if you can.

[/ QUOTE ]

"Fold more" seems like a really bad answer vs. a guy who raises 100%.

"Fold never" is probably closer to correct.

[PokrLikeItsProse]

The first thing I look for is if he is the sort who c-bets the flop 100% of the time if you call pre-flop and check the flop. A player who does this in conjunction with raising 100% preflop should be easily exploitable.

[martial]

[ QUOTE ]
The first thing I look for is if he is the sort who c-bets the flop 100% of the time if you call pre-flop and check the flop. A player who does this in conjunction with raising 100% preflop should be easily exploitable.

[/ QUOTE ]
If you know for certain hand that he will raise PF and bet the flop for sure(nothing else).

1.How many percent of your hands you call?
2.How many reraise?
3.How do you play the flop?
How will your startegy change if he is very loose caller till the river.

[Victor]

"1. Fold more with mediocre holdings. When you do play, re-raise and cap if you can."

wow, pls play me hu sometimes. i live in cleveland too. 50/100 mebbe?

[PokrLikeItsProse]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The first thing I look for is if he is the sort who c-bets the flop 100% of the time if you call pre-flop and check the flop. A player who does this in conjunction with raising 100% preflop should be easily exploitable.

[/ QUOTE ]
If you know for certain hand that he will raise PF and bet the flop for sure(nothing else).

1.How many percent of your hands you call?
2.How many reraise?
3.How do you play the flop?
How will your startegy change if he is very loose caller till the river.

[/ QUOTE ]

1. I call with a lot of hands, but less than 100%. How many depends on how well he plays the rest of the hand.

2. I reraise a lot less than some HU players think you should. I definitely don't reraise every ace or every pair the way that some people automatically do. One reason for reraising preflop is to back down your opponent and discourage him from raising every time. If he raises every time no matter what you do, then reraising for that purpose is stupid.

3. It depends on how well he plays. Once you figure that he bets the flop too often if checked to, the next thing you try to find out is if he follows up on the turn too often.

If your opponent is predictable and makes mostly automatic plays based on his hand, then all you have to do is figure what his methods are and he is exploitable. Every player is different, but here are some questions you should try to figure out.

What hands will he cap with if you three-bet preflop?
What hands will he call with or reraise with if you check raise him on the flop?
What hands will he bet out with again on the turn if you check-call the flop?

That's not an exaustive list, but it should be enough to get you started on finding his mistakes.

A heads-up battle should be about the long run, which is why hit-and-runnners are despised. Once you find a couple of exploitable flaws in a predictable player, the goal is to let him leak money to you through those flaws while not giving him a reason to change. Other flaws will reveal themselves over time and you can take advantage of those too, but once you find a weakness, you shift from looking for weakness taking advantage.

[Charon]

[ QUOTE ]
The first thing I look for is if he is the sort who c-bets the flop 100% of the time if you call pre-flop and check the flop. A player who does this in conjunction with raising 100% preflop should be easily exploitable.

[/ QUOTE ]

While it is not optimal, it's certainly not that easy to exploit. In fact, I would play against a great many people, even if I would be bound to that strategy.

[PokrLikeItsProse]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The first thing I look for is if he is the sort who c-bets the flop 100% of the time if you call pre-flop and check the flop. A player who does this in conjunction with raising 100% preflop should be easily exploitable.

[/ QUOTE ]

While it is not optimal, it's certainly not that easy to exploit. In fact, I would play against a great many people, even if I would be bound to that strategy.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you can't exploit that flaw, then you don't deserve to win at heads-up limit hold em. This sort of player isn't going to hemmorhage money the way other fish will, but it should be a steady drip of money in your direction, so long as you can mentally weather your opponent's good runs of cards. The strategy may work against a great many people, but only because a great many people are not good at poker.

I admit that beating this sort of player often involves not being stupid on the turn, but I also think that players who play this way are prone to turning into tilt-monkeys on future streets. There's also a much bigger jump in difficulty than some would expect from playing against someone like this to playing against someone who raises preflop 90% of the time and bets the flop 90% of the time when he raises preflop. But if someone is being perfectly predictable on a great number of hands, and never wavers, it should be easy to defeat.
+

[Charon]

What I'm saying is that I think you overestimate the mistake that one makes by playing that way. If the player in question is a good/great HU player, he can play this way and quite easily get away with it, except against very tough opponents.

I don't know what limits you normally play, but I would be willing to play you 100/200, with me employing said strategy. I'm not intending to make it a pissing contest; what I'm trying to get across is that I'm quite confident in my estimation that against all but very tough opponents, this strategy is not a very big mistake compared to other mistakes most players are likely to make.