Blind Defense

[Kaz The Original]

On the Big Blind, with a preflop raiser from any position at poker stars 2/4, 1/2, and 3/6 I will call a single raise if it is heads up when I have to make the call with Any Two Cards excluding A2-A5, K2-K5 and Q2-Q5.

This includes, 23o, 27o, and 38 sooted.

Discuss.

[Louie Landale]

Did you say you will call with J2 but not with A2?

[Al_Capone_Junior]

so if I read this right you'd call with 23o and 72o and many other crappy hands, but not A2-A5, K2-K5 or Q2-Q5.

This is plain idiotic. How much more discussion is really necessary here?

al

[meep_42]

Any ace (192 combinations), any Face with an 8 or better (80), anything suited that's 2-gap or better (64), any connectors 67 and better (64), 79 (12), & 8T (12).

Just off the top of my head, depending on reads, of course.

That's about 30% blind defense -- is that too weak?

-d

[meep_42]

I'm a moron, the numbers are off, it's a 41.33 defense rate -- but, my question remains, what is a good number for that?

-d

[Kaz The Original]

[ QUOTE ]
so if I read this right you'd call with 23o and 72o and many other crappy hands, but not A2-A5, K2-K5 or Q2-Q5.

This is plain idiotic. How much more discussion is really necessary here?

al

[/ QUOTE ]


Where do you make the most money in poker outside of AA, KK, and QQ?

Dominated hands.

[pokerclacker]

I'd add in pairs and play much tighter if it was an ep raise, I think Kaz generalizing and calling with the same cards no matter where the raise comes from is asinine

additionally, especialy if it were a LP raise, I would reraise about as often as I called.

[Kaz The Original]

38o, or 109suited does just as well (infact better in the case of 10-9) vs AK as it does vs KJ.

Over pairs are of course the exception, but they do not occur rarely enough to diminsh the EV of all the calls you're making.

Any time the raiser does not have one of your cards in his hand and is only simply over cards to your cards it is a HORRIBLE mistake to fold to a single raise.

If you KNEW he had AKo every time you would still call with 27o, 38o, 4Jo. It would be a large MISTAKE not too.

[Kaz The Original]

[ QUOTE ]
Did you say you will call with J2 but not with A2?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes. Now, why did I say that?

[meep_42]

This is actually correct -- the worst 27o is versus AKo is a 32-68 dog, suited about 30-70, and you're getting 3.5:1 on your money (if it wasn't SB raising), with excellent implied odds and an easily released hand if it doesn't improve. Any PP has you beat 7:3 or better, with 8s and up 8-1 favorites.

I'm leaning towards calling with just about any 2 most of the time against any open-raise and folds all the way to you.

-d

[Kaz The Original]

Exactly. Note, the more people in the pot, the more likely your crap hand is to be dominated.

[Louie Landale]

Q: "Did you say you will call with J2 but not with A2? "

A: Yes. Now, why did I say that?

Because you've been reading the "Holdem Guide to Quick Poverty"??

Your "dominated" stuff applies to reasonably tight raisers who are very likely to have a premium or very good hand. Blind stealers don't need an Ace or better to steal. And even if they DID you are still better off with A2 than J2, even if you increase the chance the opponent has a dominating Ace. The rest of the time the A is going to win a lot more often than the J.

- Louie

[pstripling]

I don't see the wisdom of this play at all. If the raisers cards were turned face up then maybe a call is warrented. However you have no idea where you are in the hand. Lets say you are raised and according to your play look down to see 8 /images/graemlins/club.gif3 /images/graemlins/diamond.gif. Well hooray, its just you and the raiser, you happily call. Now lets just take a few random flops

J /images/graemlins/spade.gifT /images/graemlins/diamond.gif3 /images/graemlins/club.gif
where are you at, is your hand any good?

Q /images/graemlins/spade.gif8 /images/graemlins/spade.gif4 /images/graemlins/heart.gif
How about now?

4 /images/graemlins/heart.gif5 /images/graemlins/club.gif9 /images/graemlins/spade.gif
what do you do here?

He comes out betting. What do you do?

My point is that even though you have a little bit of the first two flops above you could be behind already and if you are in the lead, assuming the raiser has overcards he still has plenty of ways to win. I feel the extra bets you are throwing in preflop will negate any win in the long run, especially when you factor in the times you will hit what you think is a big flop and get beat.

[TripleH68]

Do reverse implied odds apply to blind defense? I mean to say when you defend you risk losing plenty of checkers if you are dominated. If you are up against a savvy player he is likely to lay down minimizing your profit.

My usual defense for stealing is to be cautious...and do a little stealing myself to even things out.

This make sense to anyone? Or am I just weeeeak? /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[pokeryogi]

Just because 38o does just as well against any 2 over cards doesn't mean you should play them. Why would you call a raise with a hand you wouldn't call the the big blind with in any other position? Because you're already half-in? Do you think, in the long run, either of these hands wins money vs. AK of KJ? If you do, where and when do you play? I want in that game.
Still learning,
PY

[meep_42]

That all depends on whether I believe the stealer has anything decent.

-d

[Cerril]

A 93% BB defense is just silly against most positions. The reason you don't play little 4-gaps and most little cards in general is that you're a huge dog against almost every hand, especially against a raiser that isn't a 100% steal. Even if you can make a hand (and they don't simultaneously make a better one), AND you can manage to average 2 bets out of them on every street, you're still looking at a whole lot of wasted bets on blind defense where you have to toss your hand on the flop (you're essentially gambling 1SB to win 10SB in a dream scenario, provided you -always- throw away a losing hand on the flop and don't sacrifice a single bet more - that still isn't going to make you money in the long run).

Even if you make a lot of assumptions about raising hands from the players in those games, you still don't want to be playing with a hand that has what amounts to a one in twenty to catch (if you're constantly sticking around with less than 2p with trash cards, you're losing more than 1sb per losing hand - in some cases a lot more)

So, I don't see it.

[pokeryogi]

Decent? 94o is not even close to a decent hand, but it dominates 83o, doesn't it? Maybe I just play too tight!
Still learning,
PY

[meep_42]

http://twodimes.net/h/?z=445284
pokenum -h 9s 4h - 8d 3c
Holdem Hi: 1712304 enumerated boards
cards win %win lose %lose tie %tie EV
9s 4h 1053027 61.50 604852 35.32 54425 3.18 0.631
3c 8d 604852 35.32 1053027 61.50 54425 3.18 0.369

Not even a 2:1 dog, with you getting 3:1 on your money. /images/graemlins/wink.gif

Though, it should be discounted since you won't put another bet in if the flop doesn't hit you decently.

And, from what I understand, dominated hands have one of their cards counterfeited (taken away as outs for a pair/set/full house) -- like and Ace doesn't help AT versus AJ.

-d

[Kaz The Original]

aha! A chance to explain. Two things :
Neither Ace King (sooted or otherwise), nor 94o "dominate" 83o. The term dominate refers to a situation where it is very unlikely you will be able to get a better hand. For example, AK "dominates" AQ, because you can both hit an ace and you will still win.

The reason I want to call is yes, because I am half in. But more importantly than that it comes down to EV. It is HUGELY positive EV to call a early position raise if I know he has AK. I would rather he had AK than a range of hands from say A10-AK (because it would be tremendously easier to play).

As a poker player, I have no choice but to make +EV plays. That is, if I want to win.

(Btw, go to www.twodimes.net (http://www.twodimes.net) and run AK vs 83... it's important to know it's only 55:45)

[Kaz The Original]

"[ QUOTE ]
A 93% BB defense is just silly against most positions. The reason you don't play little 4-gaps and most little cards in general is that you're a huge dog against almost every hand, "

A huge dog? Could you please back this up, because it's new to me. Please use www.twodimes.net (http://www.twodimes.net) postings. I always thought it was 55:45 for most hands. Foolish me.

"especially against a raiser that isn't a 100% steal. Even if you can make a hand (and they don't simultaneously make a better one), AND you can manage to average 2 bets out of them on every street, you're still looking at a whole lot of wasted bets on blind defense where you have to toss your hand on the flop "

How about they DROP their hand every time I make mine. I gain 3.5 bets. So I have to make a hand about 30% of the time. I will hit 30% of the time.

There is to a degree a certain amount of times I will hit and they will hit, but there are also many times AKo will try to force me off a pot I hit and he didn't.

Who said anything about steals anyway? There are only two hands I don't want raiser to have, overpairs and dominating hands (ie parts of his hand that have parts of mine in it). Can't do much about overpairs, but they're just like woman or the rake.

"(you're essentially gambling 1SB to win 10SB in a dream scenario, provided you -always- throw away a losing hand on the flop and don't sacrifice a single bet more - that still isn't going to make you money in the long run)."

I suppose thats what's up for discussion right now.


"
Even if you make a lot of assumptions about raising hands from the players in those games, you still don't want to be playing with a hand that has what amounts to a one in twenty to catch (if you're constantly sticking around with less than 2p with trash cards, you're losing more than 1sb per losing hand - in some cases a lot more)"

Are you new? Heads up middle pair aint the black sheep you make it out to be. Especially if you can read your opponent to a degree post flop.

Remember! Hold'em IS a post flop game.

[Kaz The Original]

Just so that last post was clear my responses are IN the quote box, his comments are seperated by "'s.

[Kaz The Original]

The game I play in (pokah stars small limit, 1-2, 2-4,3-6) is filled with any acers. That means ATLEAST a raise, if not a cap, with any ace. Definitely a cap with ace suited ; )

(This post has a slight exageration factor, but it's really quite slight)

[Cerril]

My point was more along the lines that a lower pair is pretty terrible postflop, not that having a pair when your opponent has overcards is so bad. Holding onto low cards often means you're going to catch with a single pair against higher pockets all too often (even if it isn't all that often you stand to lose quite a bit more than you should)

In NL there's a benefit to having 'two live cards' while against weak opponents in limit you're still risking getting dominated postflop. I'm not even sure how well you can get a read at those low limits except to say 'he has at least one high card, or a pocket pair'

It still seems you're intentionally putting yourself in a position to lose a lot and win a little.

[pokerclacker]

no one said they had to be a steeler, and even if they were, they will dominate you postflop, unless you can consistantly know exactly what 2 cards they have. I think calling the raise with most of these crap hands is an awefull move. If you really put them on the steal, why not reraise with your 83o, at least you gain another way of winning, and equity if big cards hit.

[pokerclacker]

You are wrong in so many ways. first of all this 3:1 pot odds and 55:45 to suck out aren't right. in order for the 55:45 to be aplicable, it has to be assumed that you're willing to pay to see all the cards played out. the chances that you'll be ahead on the flop is far smaller than 45:55. If you want to pay to see all the cards fall, you aren't getting nearly the 3:1 fee you're hoping for. this is all of course also assuming that you know for sure that you're up against an AK, if you're up against anything else, you're still paying to see a flop that usualy won't help you, and you'll still be forced to fold to a bet on the flop. Your so called positive EV, is a lot more negative than you think...

[pzhon]

[ QUOTE ]
(Btw, go to www.twodimes.net (http://www.twodimes.net) and run AK vs 83... it's important to know it's only 55:45)

[/ QUOTE ]
No wonder people hate AK. I prefer to know that AK is a much larger favorite. AK is a made hand heads-up.

http://twodimes.net/h/?z=446164
cards<font color="white">filler</font>EV
A/images/graemlins/spade.gif K/images/graemlins/heart.gif 0.675
3/images/graemlins/club.gif 8/images/graemlins/heart.gif 0.325

http://twodimes.net/h/?z=87309
cards <font color="white">filler</font>EV
A/images/graemlins/spade.gif K/images/graemlins/heart.gif 0.577
7/images/graemlins/diamond.gif 6/images/graemlins/diamond.gif 0.423

I believe the latter is the best non-pair, non-AK to have against AK.

[Al_Capone_Junior]

Dominated hands or not, you will lose far more money playing 72o and the like than you will ever save by folding those other hands. My guess is that playing crap hands against a raiser from the BB will also lose you more than you'll ever win from your AA-QQ too.

Your arguement to call from the BB with such crap as your original post mentioned is simply ludicrous.

al

[TheHip41]

Why play 7-2o in the BB to a single raise heads up? Isn't there a better place to put money into the pot? You are getting 3-1 or so on your money, but even if you hit a 2, how aggressive can you be? Seems like a good way to leak money

Derek

[fyodor]

Even 83s is a 37:63 dog against just AKo. 83o is worse.

On top of that as someone else has already pointed out, it is not so easy to play hands like 83 even when you do get a piece.

Is this whole thread just another troll or are you really that out to lunch.

[Louie Landale]

So if they routinely raise with any ace and they did not raise, then they probably have no ace. When an Ace flops thats GOOD for 2nd pair.

[sethypooh21]

Just curious, do you have PT stats on your blind defense? I would be surprised if you were postive ex the blind. Unless you are so far superior to opponents post flop that the cards almost don't matter, (which given the state of online low-limit poker, isn't an OUTLANDISH thought) it just seems to me that you are selectively using 5 card odds to justify gambooling.

[meep_42]

Well, to be fair, doesn't nearly everyone have a negative expectation in the blinds?

/images/graemlins/wink.gif

-d

[sethypooh21]

That's why I said ex the blind.

You start off 'down' .5 bb, so if you are only losing .3 bb per hand in the bb, you are actually 'winning' .2 bb per bb hand. If you are losing .7 bb, you are obvioulsy defending poorly/too loosely.

[SA125]

And here I thought there was no strategy behind all those pots getting dragged by 72o, etc. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[helpmeout]

I'll defend the blinds with an A anyday over crap like 72o.

For starters you dont know that they have AK-AJ. They could have KQ KJ, a pocket pair, or if they are stealing then literally anything.

If when they do have an A it is likely they will bet out on the flop if one hits and then you can probably safely fold with your low kicker.

Sometimes you will pickup 2 pair with your Ax and you will clearly benefit.

If you go into the flop with 72o and the flop comes J97, then what are you to do? He might not have a J or a 9 but how are you to know? You dont know if your pair is good.

Even if he/she has nothing you cant bet out and can never be sure. Thats why the hands are so bad.

It doesnt matter that they are 45:55 chance(or whatever) the 10% of the times that you both have a pair you will get smashed. The times you have a pair and he/she doesnt you cant be confident that your pair is good.

A big leak in my game was trying to defend the blinds too much, now I just let those real bad hands go.

Now I play suited connectors or Ax Kx depending on the situation. If they come on at least I can bet with confidence.

Ax and Kx arent the best but if you hit 2 pair or trips or there is no resistance to a bet you can be confident with them.

[SA125]

That's a pretty good response. But I was just kidding. I guess my sarcasm was overshadowed by the smiley face. I try to keep digs respectfully light. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[Kaz The Original]

This whole thread is about a preflop raiser and you in the blind.

[Kaz The Original]

There is no "better place" when playing ring. You play it simply because it's positive EV.

[o0mr_bill0o]

[ QUOTE ]
There is no "better place" when playing ring. You play it simply because it's positive EV.

[/ QUOTE ]

I want to see some data from poker tracker showing that it is +EV.

it would probably have a +EV if you knew for a fact that they had AKo every time. but I don't think you're going to get too many people to turn up their cards before the showdown for you. as you said, these people are raising with any ace - therefore they could have any one of your cards counterfeited, and they'll have the ace kicker. you're bleeding money from the BB.

[sethypooh21]

[ QUOTE ]
On the Big Blind, with a preflop raiser from any position at poker stars 2/4, 1/2, and 3/6 I will call a single raise if it is heads up when I have to make the call with Any Two Cards excluding A2-A5, K2-K5 and Q2-Q5.

This includes, 23o, 27o, and 38 sooted.

Discuss.

[/ QUOTE ]

I've been thinking about this since it was originally posted, and I guess I've come to the conclusion that against the LL monkeys, this could be positive EV, but that assumes such superior post flop play as to make the cards not really matter from any position as long as it is heads up. For my money (and, for what it's worth, I wouldn't make these calls with YOUR money, even though you might /images/graemlins/wink.gif )

It seems to me that a "Calling Heads-Up With Major craP" (CHUWMP) strategy of blind defense is likely to lead to one of 6 outcomes.

1) You wiff and give up an extra SB
2) You catch, he wiffs, you win a small pot 3 bb's (unlikely against crap opposition, they aren't going anywhere)
3) You catch real good, he catches something, you win a big pot 5-7 BB's (reasonably likely)
4) You catch, he misses the flop but hits the turn/river for 5-6 BB's from you (Corrollary to 2 above)
5) You catch, he catches bigger, and takes you for 4-5 BB's (also likely)
6) You both catch huge, you get cute and pay him off big 8-10bb's (pretty likely since merely by adopting CHUWMP you seem a likely candidate for some serious FPS)

Taking the above in totality, I can't see how CHUMWP could possibly be a long term money maker in a limit game. If you can show me some PT stats that you are losing less then .5 bb's/hand with crap vs. a steal raise, I'll stand corrected, but I'm gonna bet that the stat's will put you at -.7bb or so.

Now a slighly modified version of this, where you dump the ABSOLUTE CRAP (72o, 83s, etc...) but still play low connectors, qxs or jxs vs. a steal raise, I can see that being profitable, just because it is much easier to know when the flop clobbers you. (Do you really want to be chasing a 2 BB pot with 83s when the flop comes AK3 with 2 of your suit?)

Sorry if this is rambling but this has been sticking in my craw for a week now.

Cheers,
SP

[Nottom]

[ QUOTE ]
Do you really want to be chasing a 2 BB pot with 83s when the flop comes AK3 with 2 of your suit?

[/ QUOTE ]

Thats about as close to clobbering the flop as 83s gets.

[sethypooh21]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Do you really want to be chasing a 2 BB pot with 83s when the flop comes AK3 with 2 of your suit?

[/ QUOTE ]

Thats about as close to clobbering the flop as 83s gets.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's kinda my point. Even when its good its still pretty bad...

[StoneRose]

Problem with that strategy seems to be that even if you "hit" the flop, you usually have no good way to know if you are ahead. If the preflop raise and calling the raise was all that was involved, i think you would be in a positive EV situation. But, in practice, even with the loose raising standards you attribute to Poker Stars Players, I would assume that post flop, you will very frequently find yourself calling down to the river, out of position, with something like a pair of 8's and a straight draw to your opponent's unimproved pocket jacks. Or you will flop top pair with no kicker and your opponent will have top pair with an ace kicker. It will be hard to lay down when you "hit" your hand, even though you may already be beat.

I think the strategy might conceivably work in a live loose game where you have a read on your opponent, but it would be a losing strategy online.

[bweiser8311962]

i don't understand why people fold out of the small blind when everyone before them has folded. it's happened to me twice in the last 45 minutes with me in the big blind and holding absolute crap ... 2/3o and 3/5o ... pretty sure i was beaten if the guy just calls.

[StoneRose]

I think that's a small hole in my game. I usually play 3 games at once and click autofold (or check/fold in the BB) if I have a bad deal and concentrate on the other boards. In a lot of those instances when it gets folded all the way around i might have played differently.

[TripleH68]

[ QUOTE ]
i don't understand why people fold out of the small blind when everyone before them has folded. it's happened to me twice in the last 45 minutes with me in the big blind and holding absolute crap ... 2/3o and 3/5o ... pretty sure i was beaten if the guy just calls.

[/ QUOTE ]

SB doesn't know what you have. Beautiful in its simplicity.

[Senor Choppy]

[ QUOTE ]
There is no "better place" when playing ring. You play it simply because it's positive EV.

[/ QUOTE ]

72o correct? You need to rethink the whole concept of domination. It sucks to occasionally be dominated with Ax, it sucks even worse to always be playing a hand that's always a HUGE dog, when you still might be dominated by hands like 77-AA, and it's impossible for you to have the best hand or at least an overcard to a pocket pair.

Do you have PT, and if so I'd love for you to post results of your blind play in the Position Stats tab.

[Chris Daddy Cool]

There was a thread in the high stakes forum about this concept of folding to the blinds. If it is a full ring game and it's folded to the blinds, the blinds are more likely to have AK than say, 62o.

[Chris Daddy Cool]

Your strategy is flawed in several ways.

1) Range of hands. An open raiser can have damn near anything. Without you knowing what he has specifically you are going to lose A LOT of money postflop.

For example. UTG raises. You defend your BB with 83. Exactly what range of hands would UTG raise with? If you knew he had EXACTLY AK, then calling would clearly be correct. All you would have to do is flop a pair and see a showdown unless an A or K hits. But unfortunately he could have AQ, AJ, AT, KQ, and worse for you AA, KK, QQ, JJ, TT.... It would be even worse against a MP/LP open raiser because his range of hnads would be enormous. With all this debate about avoiding domination, a button stealer could have A8, K8, 98s, A3, etc etc. and you would be dominated.
Unless you are the greatest postflop player ever and/or you know exactly what he has, you're just going to bleed money away.

As far as your simulations go about AK being a 55:45 favorite against 83 and getting 3:1 on your call. The logic is just plain incorrect. If the openraiser's raise put you all in, THEN it's an easy call because you can see a showdown for free without investing other bets. If you have to pay extra bets on the turn or river to hit an 8 or 3 against unimproved AK, you are paying much more than 3:1 and the true winning ratio would nowhere be close to 55:45.

I could write more, but I'll let other's elaborate.

[chio]

"As far as your simulations go about AK being a 55:45 favorite against 83 and getting 3:1 on your call. The logic is just plain incorrect. If the openraiser's raise put you all in, THEN it's an easy call because you can see a showdown for free without investing other bets. If you have to pay extra bets on the turn or river to hit an 8 or 3 against unimproved AK, you are paying much more than 3:1 and the true winning ratio would nowhere be close to 55:45."

Kaz,

this is a key statement i think
you can't think of preflop "odds" as real odds because you still have to play postflop where you will be completely lost most of the time because you don't know if they have an overpair or if the flop comes like J82 and you have 86 and the preflop raiser has AJ. this is one of the fundamental mistakes of new players i think

so, to sum up, your logic is flawed because:
(1) this only applies if you are all-in
(2) you have to KNOW that your opponent will have AK or big face cards, and not a big pair or hand that dominates yours

on a side not, you won't play A2-A5 or K2-K5, but you aren't afriad of K9 or A8 being dominated by an EP raiser?

[Kaz The Original]

[ QUOTE ]
Your strategy is flawed in several ways.
"
As far as your simulations go about AK being a 55:45 favorite against 83 and getting 3:1 on your call. The logic is just plain incorrect. If the openraiser's raise put you all in, THEN it's an easy call because you can see a showdown for free without investing other bets. If you have to pay extra bets on the turn or river to hit an 8 or 3 against unimproved AK, you are paying much more than 3:1 and the true winning ratio would nowhere be close to 55:45."

Assuming he always bet when he didn't hit. Which is fine, but that just means he pays off my turn check raise. Obviously I'm not going to draw for an 8 or a 3, but his hand is not exactly any easier to play post flop than mine. Does he fold to my raise to his auto bet? Does check whenever he doesn't hit? Obviously it's some sort of inbetween, 3-betting a certain number of check raises, check folding, check raising, all to disguise whether or not he hit. Me as well!

"I could write more, but I'll let other's elaborate. "

Yet to find one serious argument against me. As for larger pocket pairs, or hands like A7 vs my 67... these happen rarely. When they do, they can cost, yes, and they're harder to get away from. Just makes my play a little harder, but 3.5:1 is still 3.5:1. Add to that the fact that he's almost FORCED to auto bet me and it almost makes up for it.


[/ QUOTE ]

[Kaz The Original]

[ QUOTE ]
I've been thinking about this since it was originally posted, and I guess I've come to the conclusion that against the LL monkeys, this could be positive EV, but that assumes such superior post flop play as to make the cards not really matter from any position as long as it is heads up. For my money (and, for what it's worth, I wouldn't make these calls with YOUR money, even though you might /images/graemlins/wink.gif )

It seems to me that a "Calling Heads-Up With Major craP" (CHUWMP) strategy of blind defense is likely to lead to one of 6 outcomes.

1) You wiff and give up an extra SB
2) You catch, he wiffs, you win a small pot 3 bb's (unlikely against crap opposition, they aren't going anywhere)
3) You catch real good, he catches something, you win a big pot 5-7 BB's (reasonably likely)
4) You catch, he misses the flop but hits the turn/river for 5-6 BB's from you (Corrollary to 2 above)
5) You catch, he catches bigger, and takes you for 4-5 BB's (also likely)
6) You both catch huge, you get cute and pay him off big 8-10bb's (pretty likely since merely by adopting CHUWMP you seem a likely candidate for some serious FPS)


#1 - Surely the most likely.
#2 - Will almost never happen
#3 - Still pretty rare. 1 in 20 times (maybe?) will I catch twice and he catches once. Talking 2 pair to his one.
#4 - This is a bad thing? That I catch and he draws out on me? Note, this also lacks, I catch, he tries to draw, and misses.
#5 - Yes, quite possible. Depends on how reliable a better he is of course.
#6 - Unless he catches set over my trips this doesn't seem too likely. I'm not exactly going to go 4 bets on the river with my 8 high flush.

You've missed other scenarios.
#7 - I flop a draw, maybe a large draw like flush (or straight) and a pair. Something where I'm even money with him, or slightly less. Sometimes I hit, sometimes I miss.

It aint easy to play crap from the big blind, but when we're talking +EV we aint got no choice.

SP

[/ QUOTE ]