re: Poker & Limit Game Monthly Discussion - May, LHE
Ran across this idea recently in a vid, it may be basic to everyone else, but... Relative position.
Say we're BB. UTG folds, MP folds, CO limps, BTN raises, SB folds. We're getting 4.5:1 to call, and given that CO is going to call the vast majority of the time (assume for the moment you have a read that he's unlikely to 3bet), we're really getting 5.5:1. Not too shabby.
Let's change the scenario a bit. We're in BB again, but the action this time is CO opens, BTN calls, SB folds. We're getting the same odds as before, 5.5:1, again not too shabby.
However, the two situations are not equivalent. The second scenario is far superior for us to call in. Our relative position to the raiser is much better in the second scenario than the first.
In the first scenario, say we catch a reasonable flop that we want to continue on, but we're not keen on c/r'ing. We check, CO checks, BTN bets, we call - do you see the problem? We don't know what CO is doing, if he c/r's, we've got a bit of a problem.
In the second scenario, we catch the same flop, we check, CO cbets - and now we get to see exactly what BTN is going to do before we put any more money in the pot.
So, our position relative to the pfr is an important consideration in the playability of our hand postflop - we should be more willing to call when we have good relative position, and less willing when we have bad relative position.
Again, sorry if this is basic - it wasn't something I'd been thinking about in NLHE, since I rarely call in the BB in NLHE...