PDA

View Full Version : Do *you* lose money in the blinds ?


10-28-2001, 10:25 PM
Over the last couple of weeks I've seen a lot of people claim that a good winning player loses money in the blinds. I've heard claims that as much as 3/5 of the big blind is lost -- on average -- when a good player is forced to pay it.


This amount seems to be extremely high to me. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if a good player lost less than 1/4 of a small bet in the big blind, and 1/5 of a small bet in the small blind.


In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if most of the great winning players actually profit from playing in the blinds over the long haul.


What say the "experts"?


- Andrew

10-29-2001, 02:33 AM
Less than half the possible hands dealt to you are playable on the button if the there is no raise. For a raise, fewer still. In order for a hand to be playable, it must show a profit in the long run. In the blind positions, you are forced to put in a bet on all those hand that you would never play in any position. In early position, maybe 12% of your hands are playable. So you are putting money in on the other 88% of the time. The question you must ask yourself is whether the winnings on your good hands can overcome the losses on your bad ones?


You will gain some when the bet isn't raised, as you will sometimes hit the flop on a hand you would not play otherwise. But this will not overcome the times you don't hit. Nor will it overcome your lack of position when you catch some of the flop.


I think that even an expert will lose money in the blinds, and probably half a bet or more.


One instance where an expert may actually gain in the blinds is in a heads-up game, or perhaps 3 or 4 players total, where the expert is much better than his opponent(s).

10-29-2001, 07:33 AM
Before I read the first response I wanna try. I'm no expert and numbers I cant give ya. But general idea I think I can. The blinds suck money.


Tonite was a great example. I sat down in a nice little 15-30 game with Tommy A in seat #9 (9handed table)and me in his infamous #1 hole. Fairly tight game. No wildness, 2-3 see the flop often for a raise with one of the blinds calling. I'm getting nothing but trashola. I go 6 loops before I see a flop. Oh I take that back, I saw one flop and mucked.


Now 6 laps around the table is 25 in blinds each lap and $3 collection on the button for a total of $168.00.


So on my first halfway playable hand, i've been thinking these players have seen me muck everything, the next hand I have in EP I'm gonna pound it. So I get UTG and open-raise it. As qwickly as I fired those chips into the pot the blinds mucked! They were one un-known and Tommy A. I did have one caller but he mucked to my turn bet. So I collected $30 from him and 25 in blinds for a total of $55.00 less $1 for the dealer.


Fortunately for me on the next hand in the BB, I got my first "free ride" with 97o and saw 5 players to a flop of 774.


This made me a nice pot and I was up $125 from my starting ##'s.


But how often does this happen? free flop in BB and hitting a semi-monster. Maybe one in 20 times at best. Sticking $$ into the pot in this position sucks. I say it bleeds you. I think overall a very good player needs 1 good hand a session with decent action after the flop in the blinds. But I hardly ever see the flop if it's two bets to me in this position. I wouldn't have in the previously mentioned hand. I'd rather wait till I get a good one on the button.


So basically I think you do lose $$ on the blinds, but "playing" them costs even more. I'd rather muck bottom pair and wait till next time.

10-29-2001, 08:01 AM
I started playing gin a couple years after I started playing casino-style poker in home games. This one old guy, Hans, came in late one night after the poker game broke up and a few of us were sitting around playing gin. He saw me playing and gave me a suprised look. I asked whatsup with the goofy grin and Hans said, "I can't believe you're playing a game where you can't fold."


I don't think it's far fetched to think of the blinds in hold'em like the antes in stud. Thing is, no one would ever ask, "In stud, do you lose money when it's your ante?" Or better yet, "In stud, do you lose money when it's your low-card bring in?"


Back to hold'em ... while it's interesting and perhaps useful to ponder the value of the blinds, plus or minus and how much, I think it distracts from the real issue. It isn't how much we rate to win or lose from the blinds. What matters more is how we do in the blinds compared to our opponents. If they lose X, and we lose 1/2X, that's good, despite the minus sign. The blinds can be inherently negative, just like an ante or a low-card bring in, and still be a twisted sort of +EV situation if our negative is less negative than average. So happens that I do think the blinds are inherently negative, but I still think I make money there in least-of-evils way.


Tommy

10-29-2001, 12:03 PM
I have always had a nagging feeling that this game is won or lost in the blinds…I can’t quite put my finger on why, though. It does bring a question to mind:


Do you think that it is a mistake to let the blinds in for free, i.e. not raising preflop?


I have won some fairly decent pots from the blinds when I would have folded to a raise.

Thanks,

YJ

10-29-2001, 01:37 PM
I certainly don't claim to be a great player, but I am a winning low limit player on paradise. Since I got Pstat, I've enjoyed mining the data for trends and leaks, to try and refine my calling and raising standards in all positions, including the blinds. Unfortunately, in this high variance game we all love, my 28000 hands in the database just aren't enough to tell me much about individual situations.


But back to your question:


In my 3000 small blind hands at a fullish table (8-10), I've lost 500 BB, or 1/6 BB per hand, which is 2/3's of the 1/2 small blind post. (I saw 20% of the flops, raising just the big blind 1.5%, and raising someone else 2.5%)


In my 3000 big blind hands, I've lost about 800 BB's, or a little more than half of the small blind post. (saw 35% of the flops, raising 2.5%)


I'm sure with tougher players theses losses would be higher, and I'm sure if I were stronger they would be smaller, but the sample size is large enough to be reasonably sure of the answer.


Best,


zooey

10-29-2001, 02:22 PM
I think maybe you've been hitting the flop a lot lately.


natedogg

10-29-2001, 03:51 PM
I'm not an expert or even a strong player. I lose money in the blinds - a little less than 20% of a full bet in the big, and a little more than 10% in the small. I agree that 30% of a full bet in the big sounds high, but I'm skeptical that even the best of players makes money on a full table in the big blind. It would be, in some way, analogous to having a greater than full bet expectation from 2-seats left of the button (I know the analogy is imperfect).


Consider this, if the BB was posted on the button, would your expectation on the button likely go up or down? As context, think about what % of hands you play on the button.

10-29-2001, 05:10 PM
Are you kidding?


Yes.

10-29-2001, 05:28 PM
As in the hand I posted above about last nite. I would not have called a raise in the BB with 97o. Still, I think it's important to pick up a couple pots in the blinds in a given session. I call these bonus rounds. Winning a couple bonus rounds can lead to a very confident feeling. Confidence then brings out my best action in the "rounds" where it counts. Button, cutoff, UTG raises, etc. This confidence helps me stay alert. 3 nights ago I raised from UTG in a 7 handed passive game. Suddenly 2 seats to my left, a guy who hasnt played a hand in 40 minutes 3 bets. he got 2 callers and I throw my AJo in the muck w/o hesitation, acutely aware he has KK or AA. He had KK.

10-29-2001, 05:41 PM
In the games in which I play, many hands are contested heads up between a (possibly late) raiser and a blind. So, for this game in particular, I agree that hold'em really becomes a "struggle for the blinds". As the raiser, you want to steal as many of them as you can, on whatever round you can. As the blind, you want to tenaciously defend every penny of equity that the live blind gives you.


Since, in this kind of game, a large percentage of the hands that you play will be from the big blind, being able to correctly defend is of utmost importance. It's also the single least written about subject. The difference between a good player and a great player often boils down to how they defend their blinds.


- Andrew

10-29-2001, 06:46 PM
I believe that you lose money in the blinds. You can lose less by not calling raises etc with poor hands.


Regards

Mike N

10-29-2001, 07:00 PM
"I have always had a nagging feeling that this game is won or lost in the blinds…"


Same feeling here, except that it's not nagging. It's rioght there in the foreground. We play almost every hand either against a blind or from one.


"Do you think that it is a mistake to let the blinds in for free, i.e. not raising preflop?"


Yes, in gradual degress that mirror the tightness of the game. The tighter the game, the more a "mistake" it is to not put pressure on the blinds.


Tommy

10-29-2001, 07:05 PM
"As the raiser, you want to steal as many of them as you can, on whatever round you can. As the blind, you want to tenaciously defend every penny of equity that the live blind gives you."


Let's say everyone tried to steal as many as they could and also defended tenaciously. Would anyone have an edge? Looks like a wash to me. And let's presume it is. That would mean that in order to gain an edge, we'd have to do something different that everyone else. The two obvious options are, steal more, or defend less. I think option two is the best variant.


Tommy

10-29-2001, 07:43 PM
Let's say everyone tried to steal as many as they could and also defended tenaciously. Would anyone have an edge? Looks like a wash to me. And let's presume it is. That would mean that in order to gain an edge, we'd have to do something different that everyone else. The two obvious options are, steal more, or defend less.


If they were stealing as much as they could and defending tenaciously as much as the could "properly", then doing something different would not gain an edge. Anyone who strayed from this would lose, and the other would gain. If the button steals against you optimally (which is theoretically possible only), then anything that strays from the theorectical perfect blind defense costs you, whether this means folding more defending more. I just said the same thing twice. Gotta get 'Elements of Style'.


Now go away don't ask me to define "properly". /images/smile.gif


Regards.

10-29-2001, 09:16 PM
Which is the reason I mucked a rag last nite with Tommy on the button, open-raiseing, me in SB. I was sure he was stealing but he was in his best and favorite position. I knew my hand was a rag, and against some I may have even defended with it. As it was I felt better to wait. Then the flop gave me the nuts....oh well.


The game had the correct "tightness". Kinda like my ex-wife.

10-29-2001, 11:56 PM
Andrew,


I believe you play in the tight aggressive online games so my one point may not apply to you.


In a typical casino or card room 15/30 or 30/60 game where the small blind is 2/3 of the big blind I believe the small blind loses almost as much as the big blind. In unraised pots it is probably correct to at least call with almost all hands so the loss rate should be about the same. In raised pots you should give it up more then you would the big blind but many players can't seem to help themselves and defend too loosely against raises. My guess is that the mediocre to average player loses way more then they should here.


In a nutshell, the typical player loses as much in the small blind as in the big blind when the small blind is 2/3 of the big blind.


Regards,


Rick


PS When defending against steal raises the small blind might also be in a tough spot since the big blind has not acted yet and the post flop position is a problem.

10-30-2001, 12:04 AM
"Let's say everyone tried to steal as many as they could and also defended tenaciously. Would anyone have an edge? Looks like a wash to me."


I picked this statement because it subtly describes the phenomenon that I've been seeing. That is, it becomes "a wash". But the result of "a wash" is that the raiser and the blind split the other blind equally over the long run, resulting in a net profit for the blind and the raiser.


Thus, the proper strategy is to raise -- and defend -- in such a way as to produce AT LEAST a wash, which results in a guaranteed profit.


Of course, this is all very much player dependent.


- Andrew

10-30-2001, 02:20 AM
I have always had a nagging feeling that this game is won or lost in the blinds…I can’t quite put my finger on why, though.


It is because even though the decisions make a small difference ev wise, we face them over and over again in a session. I think that many players (including most winning players in the games i play) lose at least $1/lap of ev in the blinds in a 10-20 game. Proper defense is VERY important.


Rob

10-30-2001, 02:36 AM
Good point, Rick. Four additional factors, I think, contribute to increased losses from the small blind vs. the big blind in the 15-30 and 30-60 structure:


A) The small blind is, obviously out of position to the limpers, but also to the big blind. It's a lot easier for the big blind to take charge of a flop that looks like it missed everyone else after the small blind has checked, than it is for the small blind to do so not knowing what the big blind will do.


B) The small blind feels psychologically more committed to a raised pot, having committed 4 additional chips, whereas the big blind was just defending "his" blind.


C) The small bilnd check-raises often, since he has the first opportunity to do so when the flop bet comes, as it often does, from the player in last position. This leaves the small blind more susceptible to an overcall or reraise than the big blind.


D) The small blind will 3-bet pre-flop in an effort to drive out the big blind, whereas the big blind will never do this to drive out the small blind since the small blind has already called for two bets.

10-30-2001, 10:03 AM
"Then the flop gave me the nuts....oh well."


I think you played it perfectly, since I won a showdown with K-high. :-)

10-30-2001, 11:34 AM
have often thought that blinds should not get the "free ride"--that if I am goin to call, then I should raise


BUT then again, many times I have a hand with which I would like to see the flop as cheaply as I can--sure do not want to stir up other raises, so this conflicts with first thought?????

10-30-2001, 06:23 PM
Since we all know how you like to chastise players making bad plays!


Later,

Larry

10-31-2001, 12:29 PM
as long as you sometimes raise as a pure steal and sometimes call with a good hand when you are on the button against only the blinds, I think it is also good to just call once in a while. You only spend one small bet instead of 2 to see the flop and they do not put you on a steal. so, if they check to you on flop, your bet has more credibility.


You avoid being played back at by tricky players who put you on a steal and you can more easily fold to a bet because now they probably have some kind of hand when they bet the flop.


Another advantage: when you always automatically raise on the button against just the blinds, they know you are stealing most of the time, making your actual steals less effective. When you sometimes call, I think your steals will be more succesful as well.


I think this compensates for the free ride they get.


Just my thoughts


Stephan