Another question about the SB?

Here is another thing that gets me.. is when someone calls/limps in from the small blind. Why?

Lets start here.. lets say you limped in 4 times straight from the sb.. that is 2 BB's you could have saved to pay for without losing any more money and/or chips.

Ok lets say you have 1 limper from mid/late positon and everyone else has folded. Is making a call here really going to get you all that mid/late positions money and/or chips?

Now everyone folds to you and it is only you and the BB.. if think you can raise here then raise.. if not fold which leads me back to saving money/chips so you can pay for another SB.

Then comes my personally favorite.. calling in the SB because a crap load of limpers are in. Remember you need a hand in this case cause you act 1st on the flop.

The SB is a place to play a good hand not some decent hand or rags just because they are pretty. Save that blind for when it comes around again.. 2 SB's equal 1 BB.. but constantly calling in the SB is saving you nothing in the long run.

This was one of my biggest leaks when I was starting out, I used to see over 50% of flops from the SB, just because "hey I have money invested so i may as well call and try and hit a flop". Problem is, most of the time you won't hit a flop, and sometimes you'll end up hitting a Q holding Q4 and not knowing whether you're outkicked or not. It's not only the losing money when you miss the flop, but also losing money when you weakly hit a flop when out of position.

PT tells me I'm seeing about 29% of flops from the SB now in full ring games, and that seems pretty ideal.

Dorkus Malorkus said:

This was one of my biggest leaks when I was starting out, I used to see over 50% of flops from the SB, just because "hey I have money invested so i may as well call and try and hit a flop". Problem is, most of the time you won't hit a flop, and sometimes you'll end up hitting a Q holding Q4 and not knowing whether you're outkicked or not. It's not only the losing money when you miss the flop, but also losing money when you weakly hit a flop when out of position.

PT tells me I'm seeing about 29% of flops from the SB now in full ring games, and that seems pretty ideal.

Click to expand...

I have to admit that I am guilty of this because of exactly what you said, Chris. But yeah, I usually have to end up folding after the flop anyway. So this is definitely something I need to get over, and start playing smarter.

But one thing I don't understand is: why would you simply fold to the BB after everyone has folded to you? Chances are he has a crap hand...why not make a raise and see if you can steal his blind? You are down to heads-up play in this situation, so you might possibly be able to push him out. What d'ya think?

depends on the play style of the bigblind and my table image in blind vs blind situations

That's a great point Twizzy. If you have only two players (Big Blind and the one who limped in), it's not worth paying the rest if you have a horrible hand. It may save you chips in the long run. However, if everyone limps in, it's worth paying the rest because if you hit something good on the flop you would be getting more chips that would be worth whatever you add to limper. I know I'm really repeating what you just posted but it makes sense and it deserves to be repeated.

I agree about raising from the SB if it's folded around to you. You either raise or fold in that situation, barring you having AA or KK, which you (not too often) might want to slowplay to get some action on.

Of course, sometimes it's okay to limp from the small blind. Small pocket pairs, for instance, usually get good odds to see a flop. Likewise medium suited connectors.

But "anything suited" is pushing it a bit too far.

Onother thing which me and Dorkus mention.. It is the Sb in particular.. The blinds can be any significant amount.. but lets keep it simple..

5/10 for the blinds... so you pay 5..someone in mid position playing by the book/guideline raises it 4X up to 40. Now unless you have a great hand.. and I have seen the Sb do this as well.. calling is going to lose you much much more money every time you do call a raise like that.. You are now paying 35 more to play.. When you are only going to lose 5.. Yes you "could" defend that blind.. but its 5 you are losing not 40.

Just think if you do that 3 times in a row.. you can lose 120. Yet if you only folded you've lost 15. Well instead of having 115 extra to work with ,it is gone cause you called in the SB.

Great points guys, us fish need all the help we can get. I have to get out of this habit, especially in sit-n-gos.

Well, I guess I'm a fish. I will virtually always at least call from the SB to complete my bet. The more limpers in the pot the better. Let's see if anyone here can figure out why.

Let's see if anyone here can figure out why.

To easy actually.. the strategy involved is attatched the saying of "BB special" but it can be used for the "SB special"..

EV isn't that great though for those 2 positions.

twizzybop said:

Let's see if anyone here can figure out why.

To easy actually.. the strategy involved is attatched the saying of "BB special" but it can be used for the "SB special"..

EV isn't that great though for those 2 positions.

Click to expand...

Twizzy, I wish I had some hard evidence to show you that it is does. My gut instinct says when your getting 10:1 odds to call, you call. With any 2 cards. I did however run some simulations in the Poker Stove to see if I was on the right track. Assuming a random hand for both the SB and BB and some plausable calling hands for all other positions here's what I came up with
Your pot equity when a hand is played to the river will be:
Callers Equity Pot Odds Pos EV
8.........7%........17:1.......Yes
7.........7.5%......15:1......Yes
6.........8%.........13:1......Yes
5.........10%.......11:1......Yes
4.........12%........9:1.......Yes
3.........14%........7:1.......Yes
2.........17.5%.....5:1.......Yes
1..........50%.......3:1.......Yes
The reason for the big jump with only one caller is obvious. That one caller will be the BB where a random starting hand must be assumed. Other than that, the EV improved in each case with the additional caller. Of course this doesn't take into account the disadvantage of position, but it also ignores your huge implied odds you get a hand.

I think you're making a very dangerous assumption with the "played to the river" part of your stipulation here, and this is why:

Using the case where it's only you (the small blind) and the BB left, because it's even more apparent here, let's see what happens:

You have a random hand. Let's say it's J7o (which is a fairly average hand). You call the small blind, because the pot lays you 3-1.

But the pot only lays you 3-1 if your opponent has a bad hand (or plays poorly). With any kind of hand, he would be correct to raise here, and all of a sudden you only get 2.5-1.5 before the flop. And not only that, but since your opponent has represented better than average hand, your equity is no longer 50% - it's quite likely lower. Or do you fold to a raise here?

If your opponent has an awful hand, and you do hit something like a pair or better on the flop, he won't pay you off. In this case, you've won 3-1, correct. But in order for you to be profitable here, you need to win a lot more to cover for the times when you hit something, but he hits something better, since he has position on you.

Which brings us to this, and this is the important point to make: Your reverse implied odds from the small blind can suck pretty majorly, to get you to the river.

It would be interesting to test your strategy with a large sample using PokerTracker or similar, to see what kind of net gain you get from the small blind. But factoring in reverse implied odds, I don't see it as likely.

Interresting Fred. I'll have to think about this. It has been my experience though, at least in LL games, that the BB will usually check behind you. Not always, but usually. If I'm to the right of an aggressive player I would probably toss the poorer hands. By the same token, the raise by the BB would not represent a stronger hand due to his image and the clear steal opportunity. Now your playing poker.

As for those reverse implied odds, well, It would have to be a pretty special flop with a rag hand for me to take it that far. I'm not advocating betting into a full table with bottom, middle or even top pair.

Really, the point I was trying to make is that completing the bet from the SB is not the big mistake that twizzy thinks it is. I've actually been thinking about this for a while and may start to track my results from the SB.

Now take Notice Four Dogs How much more red the SB carries then any other position..expected value chart by Position..

http://www.tightpoker.com/poker_hands/ev_position.html

Really, the point I was trying to make is that completing the bet from the SB is not the big mistake that twizzy thinks it is

I do believe I was very correct in "Now" proving that the SB is exactly what I said it was... so your stats I say are a wee bit off there Dave..

Cool looking chart. I'm not ashamed to say that I have no idea what it means, and I suspect, neither do you.
Tell me, what conditions are those EV's based on?
Is it facing a raise, or a call?
How many callers are in the pot?
Is this Limit or No Limit?
How is it possible that the BB can have a Neg EV with 77 when all he has to do is check and he has a 1:6 chance of hitting a set?
Without adding money, any hand the BB plays MUST have a positive EV.
If you can explain any of this please do, but don't throw random stats out there when you don't even know how to interpret them yourself.
There are some new members who might be under the mistaken assumption that you know what your talking about,

Four Dogs said:

As for those reverse implied odds, well, It would have to be a pretty special flop with a rag hand for me to take it that far. I'm not advocating betting into a full table with bottom, middle or even top pair.

Click to expand...

Yeah, but that's precisely the problem. What would happen, often even, is that you would lay down third pair or second-pair-crappy-kicker because the risk of having second-best is just too great - and when you're out of position, you can cost yourself a lot of money. Laying it down is smart. But then you're not reaching the equity you need to get positive expectation anymore, because many times you will be laying down the best hand (or what would have been the best hand by the river) which is the value that Poker Stove shows you.

Four Dogs said:

Really, the point I was trying to make is that completing the bet from the SB is not the big mistake that twizzy thinks it is. I've actually been thinking about this for a while and may start to track my results from the SB.

Click to expand...

It's not a fatal mistake, no. Since you're bound to win some hands from the small blind throughout the course of the evening, it's likely to be a small mistake on a per-hands-played basis, but I think it might be a leak of yours. Look into it - if you find that you're actually making money out of the small blind, you may be an exceptional post-flop player, and in that case you should definitely keep it up.

Expected value is the average amount of big bets the hand will make or lose. So for example, AA from the small blind in a 3/6 game will make on average 2.71 times the big blind, or $16.20 per hand (2.71 * $6). 22 from the button (D or Dealer position) however, will make -0.12 EV, or -$0.72 in a 3/6 game (6 * -0.12).

The most important aspect to focus on in this EV chart is to notice the value of position when it comes to your hand. In texas hold'em, position is a huge advantage, where you want to be closest to the button as possible, the button being the last person to act. When you are in positions like the SB (small blind) and BB (big blind), you can see that your poker hand EV drops significantly in hold'em. This is due to the fact that often in these positions, you end up betting or calling with hands that are much weaker than you normally would have played with. In addition, people behind you get to see the action last, so they are in better positions to perform tricky moves or steal the pot if necessary. This is why many texas hold'em experts say that if you observe a game, that money tends to flow toward the direction of the button.

This means that you want to tighten up your poker hand selection early on in the game and drop questionable hands like KT, QT, JT, T9 and possibly even KJ or QJ in early position. You can see for yourself on the EV chart that these poker hands will lose you money in the long run in texas hold'em. In late position, you can relax your starting hand selection to include these cards however. You can also begin playing pocket pairs a bit more liberally in late position.

I relate the situation of being in the big blind and/or small blind, catching top pair on the flop with a weak kicker, calling the turn, then calling the river even when you really don't want to and find yourself out kicked. It happens all the time - so the key is to let it happen to your opponents, not you. A bet saved is a bet earned, always remember that. Texas hold'em is about learning to fold'em

Wow Tizzy, I'm impressed. Your writing, spelling and grammar has improved dramatically. You didn't by any chance just cut and paste this from somewhere say Here, and try to pass it off as your own to prove that you really do have a clue, did you? No wait, forgive me for even thinking it. Even you wouldn't stoop that low.

[17:23] <Qhr1s0> indeed, it's amusing he's so big on manners at the poker table, when he obviously has no manners when it comes to quoting other sources

Wow Tizzy, I'm impressed. Your writing, spelling and grammar has improved dramatically. You didn't by any chance just cut and paste this from somewhere say Here, and try to pass it off as your own to prove that you really do have a clue, did you? No wait, forgive me for even thinking it. Even you wouldn't stoop that low.

You asked and I quote ". I'm not ashamed to say that I have no idea what it means, and I suspect, neither do you."

So I knew what it meant.. but to write it comprehensibly as that other person did and understandable.. Was much easier to copy and paste it so
you would have an idea what it means..

indeed, it's amusing he's so big on manners at the poker table, when he obviously has no manners when it comes to quoting other sources

Never quoted it as mine now did I? Nice try though.. you have to do better than that.. stirring the pot isn't your strong suit.

twizzybop said:

Never quoted it as mine now did I? Nice try though.. you have to do better than that.. stirring the pot isn't your strong suit.

Click to expand...

Oh, that's ok, you can just plagiarise all you want as long as you don't explicitly say "HAY GUYS THIS IS MY ORIGINAL STUFF" then. I'm sorry, I obviously was not aware of this!

Hey, you know what? I think I'm gonna go make a site called c4rdschat.com, and completely copy the contents of this site. As long as I don't say anywhere "HAY GUYZ THIS IS ALL MY ORIGINAL WORK" I can't get into trouble, right?

Fact is, you can get the site into all sorts of crap if you continually rip stuff from other places and don't even give credit. Nick's already warned you about this anyway, so you should know.

Oh, that's ok, you can just plagiarise all you want as long as you don't explicitly say "HAY GUYS THIS IS MY ORIGINAL STUFF" then. I'm sorry, I obviously was not aware of this!

Hey, you know what? I think I'm gonna go make a site called c4rdschat.com, and completely copy the contents of this site. As long as I don't say anywhere "HAY GUYZ THIS IS ALL MY ORIGINAL WORK" I can't get into trouble, right?

Fact is, you can get the site into all sorts of crap if you continually rip stuff from other places and don't even give credit. Nick's already warned you about this anyway, so you should know

Yes he warned me but apparently he didn't tell you that non of the previous stuff is from any site.. You see apparently you missed the copywrite law, then to mention bandwith stealing..

Point being you can give someone a book you bought..without claming the book is yours. That is actually the 1st time I have linked to another website.. other than that the book(s) I have previously made as threads are mine to do with what I want to do with. In that case was loaned them out to everyone..

But if you really want me to, I could go into all the legal aspects of it all.

But why go into it?.. No need to? because Nick forgot to tell you "our" full conversation. If you are going to kiss and tell, please at least tell the complete story. Don't tell partial story to try to make yourself look good. Don't go telling tales out of school now, it wouldn't be good for your image.

pla·gia·rize:to steal and pass off (the ideas or words of another) as one's own

Never said they were mine.. but to make you feel better..can't post a link to another site per the rules but you know..

http://www.tightpoker.com/poker_hands.html

Damned if you do and damned if you don't..

Legal issues aside (despite the fact that the general consensus in the mod chat was that it actually is a problem, and guess what, with the legal system the way it is these days is it any wonder people want to play it safe?), and back to my original point, it's not very polite to just copy-paste other people's hard work without even giving credit, isn't it?

How about getting back ontopic?