Why reverse the blinds when heads-up?

Why do some tournaments change the blind structure (giving the button the small blind) when play gets down to the final two players?


Can anyone explain the logic for this, or tell me how it came to be common practice? Did the first WSoP tournaments use this format?


I haven't given it a lot of thought, but on the surface the idea seems to be cracked. I believe it gives the button an even bigger advantage than regular two-player blinds, creating a large imbalance in strategy.


First, I would argue that the small blind button should never fold. All else being equal, any two card hand should be willing to call for 3:1 pot odds (this is easily verified with roll-out simulations). Having the positional advantage in all subsequent betting rounds only reinforces this point. It seems reasonable that the button should always at least call, and should often raise. In fact, with position, raising any +EV hand is a reasonable guideline.


After a button raise, the out-of-position big blind has a difficult situation. Calling with a probable drawing hand isn't much fun when you have to lead off immediately after the flop. In a recent no-limit tournament, I would have liked to see a few speculative flops, on the chance of maybe out-playing my opponent after the flop. However, I didn't feel I could call a pre-flop raise with a hand like 65o when I'd have to play it up front.


Here's another way of looking at it. One player will blind one chip, the other two. This is the same as a one-chip ante for each player (this is dead money), plus one blind of one chip. Now who should have to put in this blind bet? It is generally a bad thing to have to blind (-EV), and generally good to have the button (+EV). For balance, it seems to me that the dealer should be the one to put in the blind.


If nothing else, the reverse blinds are effectively a lot bigger than the normal structure, because the first player must invest (and often surrender) the big blind amount, instead of half that. This means there's less maneuvering room for playing poker, and the result is more of a crapshoot.


Another point in favour of not reversing the blinds when heads-up is that it messes up the rotation at a critical stage of the tournament, giving someone an unfair disadvantage.


- Darse.

My only problem with the situation is this.


You start with the button and the big blind and are first to act preflop. Lets say its the 1chipSB-2chipBB.


If the BB raises any amount at all, lets say 2 chips, the SB will be getting terrible odds to call (in this case, having to call 3 chips into a 5 chip pot). I'd be worried that a BB raise would never leave the SB any kind of reasonable odds to call, with the poor odds AND knowing the rest of hand will have to be played out of position. So if you are a BB on the button, why shouldn't you raise every single hand preflop, knowing SB will have weak pot odds preflop AND you will have position for the rest of the hand, thus putting the SB not on the button in a terrible situation.


With the SB on the button, his raise usually gives the BB some kind of pot odds to call.


I don't know what the solution was. We have used the SB on the button in our games because thats how the WSOP does it.

> "You start with the button and the big blind and are first to act preflop."


No, the small blind is first to act before the flop, the same as always. Nothing has changed. There is no special case needed for heads-up play.


If the small blind fears a raise, he can fold, losing only half a bet. Compare this to reverse blinds, where a full bet is lost.


If the big blind habitually raises, the small blind can exploit that by trapping with a call-raise. There is no magic bullet.


- Darse.

A major problem with having the BB on the button is that it might inhibit action. If I am the SB, and UTG for the rest of the hand, I will not call with most hands. Limping with garbage just won't work because:


1. The button may raise, forcing me to donate and fold.


2. I will be playing out of position with garbage, and my pot equity will be way too small.


My other option as SB and UTG is to raise. So how much do I raise? One more bet (and perhaps two) is not enough because the button can call with almost anything, especially if the stacks are deep. So do I overbet the pot? I would prefer this because in general I want to end the hand preflop being out of position. Now you are risking a lot of bets as the button may have a better hand and reraise, gaining a lot of chips. But in most cases if I make a substantial raise, the button will simply fold. No action.


My previous line of thinking was that it would be unfair to have the button act last on every single round. However your post has made me pause to think. I am no longer sure (in fact I'm inclined to agree with you) and will have to think about it more.


The main issue is whether being BB is an advantage or disadvantage. Obviously with more players being the BB is bad, however heads up perhaps it is different?


Look at these scenarios:


1) SB folds. Advantage BB.


2) SB calls. Each player has invested 2 chips. BB now has the option of raising or checking. Advantage BB.


3) SB raises. BB now has the option to fold, call, or reraise when the stakes are bigger.


Is it possible the BB is actually favorable here? It seems a little complicated (and recursive) for me to work out exactly.


Will think on it more, and hope to read the wisdom shared by others.


Jim

Here is the standard thinking, as I understand it.


Last to act has an advantage. Button has an advantage. At least on the first round of betting, we'll take away the button's advantage of acting last by reversing the blinds.


I think that Jim's explanation makes a lot of sense as well. If you didn't reverse the blinds, the small blind would be correct to fold the majority of the time, and thus there would be a deficit of action.


Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)

>>Here's another way of looking at it. One player will blind one chip, the other two. This is the same as a one-chip ante for each player (this is dead money), plus one blind of one chip. Now who should have to put in this blind bet? It is generally a bad thing to have to blind (-EV), and generally good to have the button (+EV). For balance, it seems to me that the dealer should be the one to put in the blind.<<


I don't see what this has to do with anything. It doesn't matter at all whether or not the EV's are balanced in a single hand when both players are going to have the same opportunity to have the -EV (especially in a tournament where a player can't pick up when he is not the button). For example, in a full game of razz, it's -EV to have the bring-in, and it's -EV to be dealt the highest doorcard, but those are thrown together. And the main reason the low card doesn't bring it in in that game is that it kills the action, mainly because there is less incentive to try to steal the antes.


Instead, the important consideration is how to get both players to see the flop more often, and the traditional blind structure achieves that by improving the pot odds of the utg player preflop. The fact that it hurts his EV in addition to his positional handicap is irrelevant when both players are subject to the same conditions over the course of the tournament.


As far as making the tournament more or less of a crapshoot, well, that's tricky business. I claim that your suggestion will reduce the amount of postflop action, making it more of a catch-more-starting-hands crapshoot. On the other hand, encouraging players to see more flops isn't necessarily good either, because then the pot can be made too big too early and it becomes a who-can-win-more-showdowns crapshoot. Still, I think the traditional blind structure strikes the better balance.


Tom Weideman

If you are arguing that the small-blind-on-button should never fold, then why are you also arguing that he is gaining from having to put out a blind smaller than the big blind?


If he is correct to call every hand, then you can view this as a game in which each of the players put out a big blind, and the button is forced to act first preflop. I would expect that to please you.