Being Big Blind is Better

After further thought about Darse Billings' post below I thought I'd throw a few more thoughts out in the air.


I find it fascinating and counter intuitive that being the big blind in a heads up match is (I believe) better than being the small blind.


We all know that being the big blind in a typical 10-handed ring game is the absolute worst EV spot. This is correct, no?


So it seems a bit strange and unfair that we often reverse the blinds heads up, making the UTG player the BB and the button SB. Doesn't this make things even more lopsided?


After all, as Darse says, in effect each player has put in an ante of one chip each, and the BB has a forced bet of 1 chip. You'd think that this forced bet would be bad, but it turns out to be an advantage!


Neglecting postflop play and the strength of each player's hand, here is the scenario:


(A) SB folds. BB wins one chip. Advantage BB.


(B) SB calls one chip. BB now has the option of checking or raising. Advantage BB.


(C) SB raises.


(C-1) BB folds. SB wins two chips. Advantage SB.


(C-2) BB calls. Even.


(C-3) BB reraises. The situation is again reversed.


(C-3-i) and so on...


So options A and B are advantageous for the BB. In option C the BB does not have to choose C-1 (fold), he can either call (even) or reraise (flipping the situation). So it seems as though option C yields a situation that is even for both players.


Now this is neglecting pot odds, stack sizes, position, and how these raises relate to hold 'em hands and so on, but we can probably conclude that being the big blind here is an advantage.


I'm trying to figure out an intuitive explaination as to why. What I've come up with so far is that this forced bet of one chip is an attack by the BB on a 2 chip pot. This blind bet seems reasonable given that the two hands are still random. After looking at his cards, the SB can surrender the pot, defend by calling this one chip attack, or he can reraise. However if the SB defends by calling one chip, the BB after looking at his cards can again attack by taking his option to raise. It's this option that gives the BB the advantage.


I hope I'm not out to lunch here in my thinking or boring you to death (or both).


A second question I'd like to pose concerns adding players. Is being the BB still good in a 3 player game? Or is it bad, or even?


So let's say you are playing 3 handed and you are on the button. Based on the same ideas as above, it possible that straddling is your best move here (especially in no-limit or pot-limit)? What it ends up being is a blind attack on a 3 chip pot. The defenders can surrender the pot, defend by calling, or retalliate with a raise (however risking a reraise), just as above. But again, if the blinds meekly defend, the straddler can attack again with his option to raise. Furthermore, building a pot on the button when you have position throughout the rest of the hand is good anyways. I've heard it mentioned that sometimes it is the best strategy to ALWAYS open-raise your button (against certain players in the blinds). Even against strong opponents this strategy cannot be that bad. If 3-handed, why not simply straddle to give yourself even more of an advantage?


Just throwing some thoughts out.


Jim Roy

that means you should post a live straddle,,,,gl

Under this logic, the SB should blind raise 1 chip every hand, thus giving himself the advantage back. And BB should blind reraise 1 chip every hand.


What this falls under the category of is "right of first bluff"; the BB is (essentially) putting in a 1-chip bluff to start and its up to the SB to decide when and where to call or raise it. Its a challenge to the SB to decide which hands to take stands with and which hands he should throw away.


I like the SB on the button since it encourages more flops and allows for more play per hand than having a SB off the button, when the SB off the button should be very hesitant to play any hand due to acting last on every street including preflop. With the SB on the button, you will at least have position on all subsequent streets.

regarding the switch of position of the blinds in heads up play, you say 'Neglecting postflop play and the strength of each player's hand, here is the scenario: ...' i think that part of the reason for switching the position of the blinds is post flop play. the button has the positional advantage the rest of the hand, so the blinds are switched to give the preflop advantage to the UTG. now the UTG player has last action preflop, and it sort of neutralizes the advantage of being the button the rest of the hand. its sort of a trade off. the position is changing back and forth each hand, and the positional advantages and disadvantages are trading back and forth as well. perhaps this is to stimulate action as well. look at it this way: 2 slightly aggressive opponents heads up. both like to limp preflop and outplay the other guy postflop. if both like to limp, this is benificial to the BB. he doesn't have to decide to play a hand out of position until after the flop 90% of the time. it also may encourage the SB/button to play more borderline hands. he must choose now to limp and see a flop for 1/2 a bet now (90% of the time the BB doesn't raise). this choice is going to be closer to a call than a fold because the player will have position for the rest of the hand, and he will know that his opponent will probably not raise from the BB. (keep in mind that these conditions are for when both players are pretty passive, only raising maybe 10% preflop heads up) there wouldn't be much need to stimulate action for more aggressive players, but perhaps this is partly why tournaments use this blind structure for the last 2 players. more thoughts later after i get home from work...

***We all know that being the big blind in a typical 10-handed ring game is the absolute worst EV spot. This is correct, no? ***


I'm not so sure. Not only does your analysis and the fact that acts first the rest of the hand seem to imply that the sb may be worse than the big in a full game, but my own results seems to bear this out, mainly because I've played in games where you frequently get a free play in the big blind, which makes it much less of a disadvantage (you are putting in one more chip than the small blind without seeing oyur hand, but you often get to play that hand, which increases your EV from the blind). Of course, maybe I just don't have a good grasp of small blind play...

"Under this logic, the SB should blind raise 1 chip every hand, thus giving himself the advantage back."


First of all the SB can only raise 2 chips or more back.


Second, and more important, is that he does not give himself the advantage back because if the just BB calls, the preflop action is complete and we see a flop. Compare that to the initial BB bet of one chip, where the SB can call, but now the BB can again raise.