Student
08-03-2005, 04:21 PM
Poker authors each publish their own version of an Opening Hands table. For each of early, middle and late positions a list of acceptable opening hands is declared.
But how many seats, and which ones, are to be included in each of these 3 categories of table position?
GSiH states that both small and large blinds can be viewed as being in Late Position, for purposes of opening hands. So my personal interpretation has 4 seats in Late, 2 in Middle and 3 in Early. In particular, Late includes Cut-off, Button, Small Blind and Big Blind; Early is UTG, UTG1 and UTG2 and Middle is the remaining 2 seats (all for 9-handed). These are exactly the seat assignments I use myself.
VI$IP is a function of these seat assignments of ours. If we go into 30% of hands when in Late, 25% of hands when in Middle, and 20% of hands when in Early, then our VI$IP is defined uniquely, provided we also accept a particular set of seat assignments.
If we had set Late as 3 seats, Middle as 3 seats and Early as 3 seats, the resultant VI$IP would be much different than in the case above.
What are seat assignments you'd recommend for 6-handed NL HE games? This is my IMPORTANT question for today!
It's true blinds have all information about betting preflop for opponents, by the time they bet. It's also true cut-off and button seats have the advantage of having all info for the 3 subsequent, betting rounds, before they bet; in fact the blinds are now betting first, not last!
GSiH, for it's Small Stakes Strategy (SSS), largely limits betting to the first 2 betting rounds, so blinds can be viewed as being in Late Position.
But all of this just muddies the waters! There are valid reasons to include blinds in Late Position, and valid reasons for not doing so. In a sense, no matter which seat we're sitting in, if betting action occurs before us, we'll have another chance to respond to it. So being in cut-off or button position seems to have a last chance to bet advantage to them, but it's not entirely clear to me that advantage is overwhelming. After all, elgible Late Position hands can number 2 or even 3 times as many, as those for Early Position. Is this disproportion entirely defensible?
Let me take a wack at answering the IMPORTANT question, but I'd sure appreciate your opinions as to the answer too! I'll place blinds in Middle Position (even though they aren't in the middle!), UTG and UTG1 in Early Position, and Cut-off and Button in Late Position. Of course I'd also rename the positions, to be Late, Blinds and Early. Now that's a wacky proposition, so I'd sure appreciate your comments, proposed answers and ideas! Referencing topics in poker books, posts to 2+2 etc is appreciated, when possible...
Dave
But how many seats, and which ones, are to be included in each of these 3 categories of table position?
GSiH states that both small and large blinds can be viewed as being in Late Position, for purposes of opening hands. So my personal interpretation has 4 seats in Late, 2 in Middle and 3 in Early. In particular, Late includes Cut-off, Button, Small Blind and Big Blind; Early is UTG, UTG1 and UTG2 and Middle is the remaining 2 seats (all for 9-handed). These are exactly the seat assignments I use myself.
VI$IP is a function of these seat assignments of ours. If we go into 30% of hands when in Late, 25% of hands when in Middle, and 20% of hands when in Early, then our VI$IP is defined uniquely, provided we also accept a particular set of seat assignments.
If we had set Late as 3 seats, Middle as 3 seats and Early as 3 seats, the resultant VI$IP would be much different than in the case above.
What are seat assignments you'd recommend for 6-handed NL HE games? This is my IMPORTANT question for today!
It's true blinds have all information about betting preflop for opponents, by the time they bet. It's also true cut-off and button seats have the advantage of having all info for the 3 subsequent, betting rounds, before they bet; in fact the blinds are now betting first, not last!
GSiH, for it's Small Stakes Strategy (SSS), largely limits betting to the first 2 betting rounds, so blinds can be viewed as being in Late Position.
But all of this just muddies the waters! There are valid reasons to include blinds in Late Position, and valid reasons for not doing so. In a sense, no matter which seat we're sitting in, if betting action occurs before us, we'll have another chance to respond to it. So being in cut-off or button position seems to have a last chance to bet advantage to them, but it's not entirely clear to me that advantage is overwhelming. After all, elgible Late Position hands can number 2 or even 3 times as many, as those for Early Position. Is this disproportion entirely defensible?
Let me take a wack at answering the IMPORTANT question, but I'd sure appreciate your opinions as to the answer too! I'll place blinds in Middle Position (even though they aren't in the middle!), UTG and UTG1 in Early Position, and Cut-off and Button in Late Position. Of course I'd also rename the positions, to be Late, Blinds and Early. Now that's a wacky proposition, so I'd sure appreciate your comments, proposed answers and ideas! Referencing topics in poker books, posts to 2+2 etc is appreciated, when possible...
Dave