Heads-Up Limit Hold'em PF

[AlwaysWrong]

On one of the sites I play there is quite a bit of heads-up limit play, with the button being the small blind (unlike Stars).

From my observations, the majority of people limp in most of the time from the button. This seems wrong to me, as I want to push my positional advantage as much as possible, especially when A-high and K-high can win unimproved.

Here's a brief outline of some possible reasonings behind each possible pf strat:

1) Always limp - You get to see more flops in position, you might be able to play more hands than if you always raise (???), the pot is smaller on the flop, so your bet will have more levarage when your opponent checks, and you can throw away more marginal hands when your opponent leads into you.

2) Always raise - you push your advantage early, you don't give your opponent's really poor hands a chance to hit for free (they have to pay to play).

#1 and #2 share the property of not giving away much about your hand at the start.

3) Raise sometimes, limp sometimes - You can start pushing with your high card hands and go for odds with hands like 45s, 34s, 22.

Obviously with 3) you have to mix it up, limp with high cards hands sometimes, raise with drawing hands sometimes, limp re-raise sometimes, etc.

It's quite clear that against all but the worst opponents you have to mix up your play, but before the flop just doing the same thing every time seems like the most deceptive and most profitable play.

Comments?

[ALL1N]

With the SBB setup, raising every hand preflop from the SB is not far off the optimal strategy.

[naphand]

Only if your opponent is sometimes folding PF.

[Glenn]

"Only if your opponent is sometimes folding PF. "

No, this is irrelevant.

[Peter_rus]

HU I raise from SB 50% of hands and fold the rest. Never limp. If SB completes i raise 33% if hands. The rest i check.

[Glenn]

That is terrible. If you want to know why, go back like 2 years in the archives and look for my discussions with tewall.

[sqvirrel]

[ QUOTE ]
Concept one - you can play every hand in heads-up Hold’em and defeat an opponent who is not as good as you. In fact, it may not be a bad idea to even play every hand against anyone, including WCPs.

If you ask me, “How can you play every hand and win?” I will ask you,” What are you going to do with an opponent who raises every pot on the button and calls every raise when you have the button?”

The people who sit and wait for a hand, like they are in a ring game, will soon find they have lost numerous buy-ins in blinds. Others will often raise every pot on the button and call every raise when you have the button.

[/ QUOTE ]
Heads Up Poker (http://)

[Dov]

[naphand]

No it isn't, and it is a tactic that is easily countered. A cursory glance through the HU section in HFAP clearly exaplains why and when it is most effective.

[sqvirrel]

Link. (http://www.pokermafia.com/index.php?tid=free&artid=31&action=zoom)

[Glenn]

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHA you didn't just tell me to read HPFAP did you? This is why I don't contribute in this forum. I hate getting condescended to by some newbie, and then needing to repeatedly justify my presence. If you want to play sometime shoot me a PM. I'd like to see you "easily counter" me. I have played hundreds of thousands of hands of heads up poker. I was playing 1-1 professionally before poker became the new black. Raising most of your hands preflop from the button is the best way to play, and raising all of your hands is only a small mistake, if it is a mistake at all (depending on opponent). If you don't belive me, there is some guy named Lederer who supposedly raises 100% from the button. I don't have the time or motivation to spend 1500 hours arguing every small detail with everyone who isn't completely clear, especially since I've done it before, and especially since this one is so basic. If you want believe me, fine, if not, that's fine too, but if you want to talk to me like I'm some idiot that can't understand the incomplete 5 pages on S/H play in HPFAP that every wannabe mediocre s/h player clings too, save it.

[J_V]

I'm still clinging to those five pages unfortunatley.

But w/ threads like this, I'll be a heads up shark in NO TIME!!!!

But my preflop stategy is coming along. I've narrowed it down between always limping, always raising, or a little of both.

[AlwaysWrong]

Thanks for the replys.

Only playing 50% of your hands from the button seems much too tight to me, and probably to most people. 75%-85% seems like a better number.

When you get to this high % it's easier to talk about what you're throwing away than what you're keeping. Here is a possibile scheme of hands to muck pf.

x2o, where x isn't 2,A,K,Q
x3o, where x isn't 3,A,K,Q,J,T
45, 46, 47, 48, 49
57
23s, 24s, 25s, 26s, 34s, 35s, 36s, 46s

That has you folding 29/169 = 17% of the time. Are there hands that you would add/remove from this list of hands not to play from the button?

[Edit: I realize this has to be a list that you adjust depending on your opponent's tightness and post-flop play (if they are too tight you simply play 100% until they figure it out). It's also probably much less important than every other aspect of hu play, but I want to get a good starting point.]

[edge]

I'd play less suited low cards and more unsuited high cards. I'm a pretty bad heads-up player, but it seems to me like you'd rarely get odds to draw to a flush, and something like 72s looks like trash to me, whereas J2o has (obviously) more high card strength.

[Trix]

Remember what forum ?

[naphand]

[ QUOTE ]
you didn't just tell me to read HPFAP did you?

[/ QUOTE ]

That is exactly what I just told you to do.

[ QUOTE ]
I hate getting condescended to by some newbie, and then needing to repeatedly justify my presence.

[/ QUOTE ]

Forums are not about repeatedly "justifying" your presence, they are about discussion and sharing of opinions. If you are too full of yourself to "lower" yourself to explain your opinions, then I think most people would be perfectly happy that you do not contribute. Call me a newbie if you wish, you may be the only person that does, but if it makes you feel better about yourself to do that, good luck. I am left wondering why you even made your post?

[ QUOTE ]
...(depending on opponent).

[/ QUOTE ]

This appears to be in agreement with precisely what I said.

[ QUOTE ]
Raising most of your hands preflop from the button is the best way to play

[/ QUOTE ]

You have failed to explain why. And if you can make the effort to re-read the original post, it taked about raising ALL hands PF. You seem confused about this point.

[ QUOTE ]
I don't have the time or motivation to spend 1500 hours arguing every small detail with everyone who isn't completely clear

[/ QUOTE ]

If it is so obvious, it would take less than 15 minutes, not 1500 hours. Are you always so prone to overstatement? It does tend to call into question the claims you make for yourself... /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[ QUOTE ]
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHA

[/ QUOTE ]

This says it all.

[naphand]

Interesting article. Regulars on RGP will recognise the author of this website, while some of his views are controversial he has penned some thought-provoking articles.

And so, the strategy to counter being raised every hand from the SB? Call every raise (as outlined in this article). You are getting 3:1 to make the call, and against effectively a random hand, is an easy call.

All it does is remove the PF action as having any relevance to the hand, strategically (if you choose always to call and never 3-bet) and makes it entirely a post-flop game. The raise becomes a positional raise only (with the button).

[ALL1N]

[ QUOTE ]
A cursory glance through the HU section in HFAP clearly exaplains why and when it is most effective.

[/ QUOTE ]

I can understand the anger this induced.

* * *

If you don't understand why raising most of your hands from the SBB is correct, here's a simple explanation.

Assume a 2/4 game in which you both start with 4 chips. If you use this chart - http://www.jazbo.com/poker/huholdem.html - and your noggin, it is not too hard to see that the correct strategy is to raise all but the worst 13 starting hands from the small blind button (SBB) - thats 86% of your hands - and to call all hands in the BB.

Now the short stacks mean I've skipped 3.5 streets of play. But let me ask you this: who are these extra streets of play going to favour? The SBB, of course. Every street of play after the flop increases his value simply because of the positional advantage.

So while raising 86% of your hands is correct when you only play one street, adding extra streets and extra play means you should play MORE hands still.

I hope I have enlightened some of you.

Richie

Appendix:
noggin=brain

[Peter_rus]

What was the name of topic?

[MisterKing]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
A cursory glance through the HU section in HFAP clearly exaplains why and when it is most effective.

[/ QUOTE ]

I can understand the anger this induced.

* * *

If you don't understand why raising most of your hands from the SBB is correct, here's a simple explanation.

Assume a 2/4 game in which you both start with 4 chips. If you use this chart - http://www.jazbo.com/poker/huholdem.html - and your noggin, it is not too hard to see that the correct strategy is to raise all but the worst 13 starting hands from the small blind button (SBB) - thats 86% of your hands - and to call all hands in the BB.

Now the short stacks mean I've skipped 3.5 streets of play. But let me ask you this: who are these extra streets of play going to favour? The SBB, of course. Every street of play after the flop increases his value simply because of the positional advantage.

So while raising 86% of your hands is correct when you only play one street, adding extra streets and extra play means you should play MORE hands still.

I hope I have enlightened some of you.

Richie

Appendix:
noggin=brain

[/ QUOTE ]

Interesting material -- thanks for linking to the percentages page, as I had not seen that before. The one way in which your "2 players with 4 chips each" example is problematic (and I realize you're only showing why raising a very high % of the time is right, as opposed to 100%) is the situations where your opponent is holding a top 10 hand... one with equity about .66 or higher. Here, your "always raise" strategy is going to get murdered because you're hemmoraging chips with the worst of it, and your positional advantage later on doesn't do enough to fix that. So even limiting yourself to all but the bottom 13 is not automatically +EV. Its more nuanced than that, at least when your opponent can apply pressure on future streets with the best of it.

[ALL1N]

[ QUOTE ]
The one way in which your "2 players with 4 chips each" example is problematic (and I realize you're only showing why raising a very high % of the time is right, as opposed to 100%) is the situations where your opponent is holding a top 10 hand... one with equity about .66 or higher.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're missing the point. Your opponent holds a "random hand," so you treat it as a "random hand." This is the same as when you reraise KK preflop, knowing your opponent could well have AA.

[ QUOTE ]
Here, your "always raise" strategy is going to get murdered because you're hemmoraging chips with the worst of it, and your positional advantage later on doesn't do enough to fix that

[/ QUOTE ]

All I have to say is that the cookie crumbles both ways. You and your opponent both have the opportunity to make bets and raises of the same size. You also have a positional advantage. So if your opponent is no better than you postflop, the additional rounds of play can only be additional profit.

[naphand]

[ QUOTE ]
I can understand the anger this induced.

[/ QUOTE ]

Give me a break. From a one-line answer/dismissal, pretending to be absolute truth? It never ceases to amaze me how some posters are so arrogant to think they can just sweep away the opinions of others in a few words. If he got angry, good, because it was his contempt for the opinions of others that induced that return. Respect is earned, not a God-given right.

GETTING BACK TO THE POINT...

I think giving such a very simplified example (ALLIN) will inevitably result in a strongly-biased conclusion. HU is not about just PF, and going all-in every hand.

If you are capable of out-playing your opponent then it makes obvious sense that you should do precisely that on every street. By adopting an indentikit play PF you eliminate the possibility of outplaying your opponent on that street!! You might as well argue "always raise PF from SB, and always bet the flop". This is clearly a tactical cul-de-sac.

I don't buy the "disguise your hand" line, as there are other ways to achieve this using a combination of raising, folding and calling. For example you raise certain hands combinations PF, then switch to another combination (including bluffs etc.), and another. This way your opponent will never know what your raises mean. With a continual raise approach he knows one thing for sure - you have a random hand. You can argue that it is a simple way to achieve this, I can accept that. But this does not demonstrate it is optimal (esp. in ALL situations).

The positional advantage is clear, but again, are you really exploiting your position by always making the same plays? I don't think so. The same argument applies to pocket AA, do you always raise PF? or is it possible to gain extra equity from a particular player by sometimes limping (and applying varied post-flop strategies)?

And while you may demonstrate theoretically that raising 86% PF is optimal (I am not convinced, though I have to say my personal strategy has been to dump the bottom 20% of hands and raise the rest from SBB, so we are not really far apart on this point) it is not a "simple" step to raising 100%. Not only is this counter-intuitive, but counter-logical; if outplaying your opponent involves losing the least on hands with the least value, then it cannot be true that your can outplay your opponent by playing on with those same hands.

Against a player who plays every hand (i.e. does not fold to a raise PF, and plays every SB hand) then a strategy of playing every hand yourself would certainly not put you at a disadvantage PF, but is this really the same as playing optimally?

I am sure everyone has played players who limp every hand PF, while we raise a lot and fold a few. Eventually these players start to fold some hands PF as they are continually getting whacked by better hands. You then get the chance to steal PF. And so on. HU play is highly opponent-dependent and I cannot believe that a standardised PF strategy (that eliminates PF strategy) is optimal in all cases.

I am also slightly bemused by the eagerness of people to blur the distinction between raising ALL hands PF and raising MOST hands PF. There is a difference, and it is not insignificant. It is not insignificant in terms of equity, and it is not insignificant in terms of strategy.

Against GOOD players, or very good players, who have this strategy, I think you almost certainly have to counter it with the same strategy. Though why you should sacrifice PF leverage/strategy is still somewhat beyond me. For me, this may be relevant for players who want kudos from beating other good players, but if I am up against a player who clearly knows what he is doing HU I have a clear choice: stay and try to sharpen my game, while paying a ton of rake and quite possibly having the worst of it, or go elsewhere and find some fish to play. Personally I play to put $$ in the bank, and games against very good players are reserved for those few days I feel I need some learning (and I don't mean by this that I rarely need learning, but that I rarely want to pay through the nose to learn, though sometimes we probably have to).

For those players who absolutely have to beat everyone they sit down at the table with, then they can believe and play what they want if it suits their game plan, but this attitude seems to run against the notion of playing "professionally". Of course there are games that are only accessible by playing world-class of very good players, and there are those players who no longer have concerns about what money they make, and for whom "beating all comers" is everything.

[naphand]

[ QUOTE ]
if your opponent is no better than you postflop, the additional rounds of play can only be additional profit.


[/ QUOTE ]

Always assuming you can beat him for more than the rake, which will probably not be the case against any reasonable HU players.

[Peter_rus]

I miss a point too. If you'ru HU on SB you face random hand on BB.

Your raise for value is only when you have hand better then random. If you're allin you have 3 free streets which increase your value as well as BB value and you still have less than fair share with <50% of equity hands.

If you're not better than random - why raise? Just to lock out giving to BB info?

And what will you do if he start to defend all his hands, but what is the most bad for you - near 40% of hands he will 3-bet PF?

[rjc199]

A good percentage of the time I raise with my crap hands in the SB. I get alot of folds on the flop. If he calls all my bets I get some advertising value out of the bluff.

I had occasionally been getting 3-bet by better hands when doing this. What I do is check-fold the flop if I don't get anything (I may check call to set up a later check-raise), because he told me with his 3-bet preflop that he has a better hand.

[Peter_rus]

Look, if you raise your crap on SB every monkey spot it and start to defend all and start also proceed when have no pair on flop.

You will been 3-betted by hands Q7o (from me for eg) if you raise 86% of hands. Everyone will make note for ya - "raises all". It's exactly the same if you're "limping all". Everyone must play against ya as if you have random hand.

If you fold flop missed you will be punished with your own raises.

I'm certainly don't understand why 86% of SB raises can be correct... Maybe someone explain?

[Diplomat]

Whatever happened with this? Are we going to have a HU deathmatch or what?

-Diplomat

[ALL1N]

Heh who are you asking? I'll play.

[Diplomat]

I was referring to Glenn and Naphand...

-Diplomat

[Peter_rus]

Hi, i want to play with ya HU. I want to improve maybe my HU play with someone who seems to be pro HU player so i think you'll accept bets not more than 5/10. I have no cash in other sites except PartyPoker and have some problems to transfer them to other site. So if you like - you or me can open private 5/10 HU table where we can play HU (i have never open private table before so it would be better if you have one).

Please PM me if you like to.