Is having the initiative a fundamental advantage?

[elindauer]

In a high stakes game where the players are able to remember things like who raised before the flop, etc etc, is having the initiative, ie, putting in the last bet in the previous round, a fundamental advantage?


By fundamental, I mean an advantage that cannot be overcome by your opponents playing well. For example, having position is a fundamental advantage because no matter how well your opponent plays, he must act first.

There is lots of talk on these boards about "seizing the initiative" and "taking control of the hand" etc, generally defending aggressive play. I still think aggressive play is good, but for other reasons. I'm starting to think that "the initiative" is actually a rather unimportant thing, assuming your opponents play well.


I'd argue that what's important is this:

- the size of the pot
- the hand range you put your opponent on
- the hand range you think he puts you on
etc.

for as many levels as you want to go.



Here's an example in which "initiative" is distinguished from "hand range" to show the point clearly:

I raise in the CO with AA. The big blind calls.

Flop: 992

The button checks and raises. I know that the button would always slowplay a 9 here, so I call with aces. The button now has the initiative, but in fact, having the initiative here has hurt his chances of winning the pot, because it has defined his hand range very clearly. There is no way I can be outplayed on the turn now that he has the initiative.

This is an extreme example, but it shows the point. The initiative in itself is meaningless. All that matters is the hand ranges. The initiative tends to be correlated with stronger hand ranges which leads to folds, but you can easily imagine situations or playing styles where this would not be the case. Imagine a Tommy Angelo-style player who does a lot of calling even with very big hands. Not having the initiative makes little difference in his ability to bluff at various points and take it down immediately.

Perhaps the most compelling argument against the initiative being important in and of itself is this: any player could defeat this advantage by simply forgetting who raised last round!

thanks,
Eric


ps. am I the only person left on this site that is not a moderator?

[astroglide]

[ QUOTE ]
The button checks and raises

[/ QUOTE ]

FLOOR!

[phish]

Your example is really horrible. Yes, having the monster hand is certainly much better than having the initiative. No reasonable person is folding AA against any but the most timid well-known player even for a turn checkraise.

Where initiative matters is when neither has much of a hand. There is a subtle psychological mechanism at work in poker that is partly ego-driven: the person who takes the initiative expects the other player to defer to him. So that when the other player donk bets instead, the first player is 'outraged' and will more likely raise to reclaim his initiative, even when he has nothing. Now the other player also knows this, and unless he's willing to spray some bets, will now be more likely to defer, since he recognizes that his odds of stealing the pot cheaply is much reduced. Now this psychological game is not absolute of course, and hence there is much donk betting with nothing. But in general, it is a subtle understanding that both parties do adhere to to some extent.
Now one could take advantage of this 'understanding'. For example, let's say you flop a strong hand. Rather than checkraise the flop or try for a checkraise on the turn, you may just want to call the flop, and then hesitate and bet the turn. You will often get raised by someone without much of a hand.
But regardless, 'having the initiative' as you call it is a real phenomenon and has a +EV overall.

[Leaky Eye]

[ QUOTE ]
In a high stakes game where the players are able to remember things like who raised before the flop

[/ QUOTE ]

Wow if there are games where players aren't able to remember this please point me to them! /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[Tommy Angelo]

"In a high stakes game where the players are able to remember things like who raised before the flop, etc etc, is having the initiative, ie, putting in the last bet in the previous round, a fundamental advantage?"

Yes. It's a relentless advantage, like being last.

How many times do both players have nothing?

Of those times, how often does the pot go to the bettor?

Of those times, how often is the bettor who wins the pot the same person as the bettor who bet or raised on the prior round?

The answer to all three questions in the games I play in is: most of the time. Anything that wins pots most of the time when everyone has nothing is huge.

And there's other things too, that initiative buys. Getting checked to, getting reads, and becoming last to act.

"Imagine a Tommy Angelo-style player who does a lot of calling even with very big hands. Not having the initiative makes little difference in his ability to bluff at various points and take it down immediately."

I bluff plenty, and lots of my bluffs work, when I have the initiative, and because I have the initiative.

[VanVeen]

The short answer to your question is simply, "no". There is no inherent advantage to having the initiative at any form of poker. "Initiative" is shorthand for exactly what you've suggested it is: having a stronger hand range and making the perceived cost of rebluffing with nothing hands exorbitant. The information leaked on the previous round(s) of betting by all the players involved makes it so. "Initiative" would have no meaning in a game between players playing optimally from a game theoretic perspective.

But that doesn't matter and you already knew the answer. What's important is: Given how the overwhelming majority of players play poker, 'initiative' is something worth seizing and the language used on this forum is entirely appropriate.

You seem more interested in poker from a theoretical point of view while nearly everyone else here is interested in taking money from donkeys. For instance, there is no reason whatsoever to 'balance your hand range' by randomizing 3bet turn bluffs or flop donk bets when even expert players are making easily identified errors that you can exploit with simpler strategies. Even the way in which they adjust is exploitable. You have to keep in mind that they're working with very limited information when it comes to your play, and as a consequence they're forced to overadjust in many cases (because they correlate your play w/other players they've played against who employed straightforward, exploitable strategies). You don't need a non-exploitable hand range: you just need one that exploits your opponents' hand range while hopefully triggering desirable adaptations (or avoiding undesirable adaptations).

Hi Eric,

I agree with you and do not think that initiative is a fundamental advantage the way you define it. And technically I think you are right that all that matters is the pot size, your hand, and the many levels of hand ranges that you put each other on.

I think in practice though it is a significant advantage, mainly because people tend to over-value aggressive actions.

If you're in a game where people auto-call your raises or bets, seizing the initiative is actually a disadvantage since you'll be putting more money in with the worst hand. You should be raising or betting for other reasons, like value, but not to seize any "initiative." And this is the case all the time in very good games.

However, against better players who aren't world class, seizing the initiative works because people generally don't pinpoint your hand range accurately, skewing it more toward higher valued hands than it should be. For example, many decent players will fold an unimproved ace on the flop or turn when, if they actually defined your hand range more correctly, would discover that folding is incorrect since you are capable of "seizing the initiative" with many worse hands. If this suddenly changed and call-downs became the defacto-standard among decent players, then seizing the initiative would become worthless.

Great post btw.

But watch any high stakes game and it has gotten to that point: a much larger range of hands are capped, and most those hands go to showdown since hand ranges are interpreted more correctly; for eg; all flops are cont bet by the pfr. most turns are cont bet.

Therefore you should basically call with anything thats a favourite over his hand range on the flop and turn if you know he will always bet the flop and turn. You should even call with anything that has even the slightest chance, because since the pot is capped preflop most the time, you only need a smidge of equity.

I used to always wonder why people would be calling down at high stakes with stuff like K high, back door flush draw, one overcard, in a 150-300 game that was 3-4 handed, when the other guy had the initiative; but it really doesn't matter about iniative; usually having a couple outs and a small chance of winning at showdown is enough to call down since you KNOW he always cont bets flop / turn.

The problem is when they start checking with the iniative, since you can't correctly interpret their hand range (you have to work out what they bet and check postflop, not just their preflop play, because their flop play was previously automatic); but then what is the point of the initiative if you are not going to use it to bet?

(sorry this is a massive ramble, its a tricky subject)

[elindauer]

[ QUOTE ]
"Imagine a Tommy Angelo-style player who does a lot of calling even with very big hands. Not having the initiative makes little difference in his ability to bluff at various points and take it down immediately."

I bluff plenty, and lots of my bluffs work, when I have the initiative, and because I have the initiative.

[/ QUOTE ]

Then why do you play so @#$!&* passively out of position?! /images/graemlins/smile.gif

It's an understatement to say that I am surprised to read this post from you, arguing that aggression and having the initiative is so profoundly important in your games. This argument seems totally inconsistent with most of the playing posts I've read. If you think the initiative is so important, then why don't you take the initiative more often out of position? Wouldn't that help negate your positional disadvantage?


I imagine that litte kid in the matrix when I say this:

don't try to take the initiative. that's impossible. instead, only try to realize the truth... there is no initiative.


-Eric

[elindauer]

[ QUOTE ]
There is no inherent advantage... But that doesn't matter... You seem more interested in poker from a theoretical point of view...

[/ QUOTE ]

There's no doubt that I'm interested in the theory of poker. As a purely intellectual exercise, it's fascinating.

That, however, is not my sole motivation. The only way I know to improve in games is to try to learn and practice the fundamentals. In poker, this is quite difficult, since there isn't much agreement on what the fundamentals are, or how you should practice them. In many ways, I've been forced to come up with own idea of what these are.

One way I've tried to understand the game is to understand it's "basic strategy", to try to imagine what the game would look like if it were played perfectly. Not perfectly in the "everybody knows everybody else's cards" sense (although I did practice that when I started), but perfectly in the "incomplete information game theory" sense.

Now, if I discover that the initiative is not really an inherent advantage in the perfect game, this doesn't change my play immediately, but it does change my understanding completely.

If there is no inherent advantage to the initiative, then I can't defend a move by just saying "and I grab the initiative"... I have to acknowledge that I am taking advantage of my opponents bad play to even suggest that such a thing is possible. What is it exactly that he is doing that allows me to say this? Is this actually true for this opponent?

Without seeing that the initiative doesn't mean anything in itself, I can't even begin to contemplate the widespread mistakes in current play that have caused me to take this flawed view. I can't consider what mistakes I'M making against good players that allow THEM to keep seizing the initiative from me and gaining an edge.


So, yes, I am interested in the theory, but a big part of the reason why is so that i can then try to understand the practice. In all of my theoretical exercises, like my recent failed attempt to talk more about game theory and perfect play of a hand, I'm hoping that seeing how it would be done against a perfect opponent will help me understand how to adjust to the actual highly-flawed-but-often-uniquely-flawed opponents I actually face.

Mostly, I'm interested in getting to a place where I know that I will always be able to beat the game, no matter how the styles change with the times. As a pro, that is my job security.

-Eric

Agree with everything you just said qutie strongly: I especially agree with how looking at how there is no inherent advantage to iniative helps you realize that the EV created by iniative is purely a product of the opponents misplay; primarily their ineptitude to play 'correctly' against your hand range.

EG; this includes stuff like calling with KQ on an ace high flop with the right pot odds and a wide enough raising range; or even raising it; given that the raisers range isn't actually that likely to have an ace, even though them taking the iniative may suggest they do).

An example of exploiting iniative I have used frequently is against a fairly tight player we play 3 handed with who 3 bets a fairly normal range but if you cap preflop he will give up overcards on the flop for fear of domination; hence the extra small bet invested causes your opponent to make a large post flop play error because said opponent has not thought about how he is being exploited; he is a victim of iniative, a man made concept that does not actually exist in a game theory model, but only in the minds of the blissfully ignorant.

[Tommy Angelo]

"Wouldn't [taking the initiative] help negate your positional disadvantage?"

Help is not enough. Nothing can undo positional disadvantage. Checkraising can't. Taking the initiative can't. That's because positional disadvantage is just there. It doesn't change. And someone always has it. When I choose to play POOP (passively out of position), I'm merely conceding to the other guy exactly what he has coming, positionally, and nothing more.

[Lestat]

[ QUOTE ]
"Wouldn't [taking the initiative] help negate your positional disadvantage?"

Help is not enough. Nothing can undo positional disadvantage. Checkraising can't. Taking the initiative can't. That's because positional disadvantage is just there. It doesn't change. And someone always has it. When I choose to play POOP (passively out of position), I'm merely conceding to the other guy exactly what he has coming, positionally, and nothing more.





[/ QUOTE ]

All true. But I hope you'll agree that there are many ways to reduce or even offset positional disadvantage against inferior players.

[Dazarath]

Isn't the free card play related to the idea of taking the initiative? If opponents completely ignore the idea of the last aggressor on the previous streets (ie. people who donk bet hands they like, regardless of the previous action), then the free card play becomes useless. But as it stands, it is a useful play in certain situations, and I believe that this is because when we make this play, we are trying to represent a hand range better than the hands of our opponents. (It's also taking advantage of the fact that just about everyone loves to checkraise.) So yes, you could say that this is taking advantage of our opponent's bad play. But so is all of poker.

[andyfox]

"I hope you'll agree that there are many ways to reduce or even offset positional disadvantage against inferior players."

Not to respond for Tommy, but I can tell you from playing with him that he does. Also note that he says "when I choose to play POOP," implying that there are times he doesn't play that way.

[Lestat]

I figured. It goes without saying. No one of his caliber plays POOP all the time. I've never played with him (to my knowledge), but I highly suspect that it's mostly the *iffy* hands Tommy plays that make it on herem which cause such an uproar. But that's the way it should be, since that is what stimulates debate.

[Lestat]

What I'm saying is that some players (very good players) can punish you more severely for trying to take the initiative when out of position. They will also make better reads and crisper laydowns when in bad shape. Against these type of players, you have to be more careful about trying to seize the initiative, lest you punish yourself.

Against other players, it is precisely important to take the initiative if they won't punish a hand that's in trouble, or will possibly fold a better hand, or will allow a worse hand to draw out cheaply, or will allow a worse hand to fold by announcing when it's in trouble, etc. This is all I meant.

[phish]

[ QUOTE ]
Agree with everything you just said qutie strongly: I especially agree with how looking at how there is no inherent advantage to iniative helps you realize that the EV created by iniative is purely a product of the opponents misplay; primarily their ineptitude to play 'correctly' against your hand range.

EG; this includes stuff like calling with KQ on an ace high flop with the right pot odds and a wide enough raising range; or even raising it; given that the raisers range isn't actually that likely to have an ace, even though them taking the iniative may suggest they do).

An example of exploiting iniative I have used frequently is against a fairly tight player we play 3 handed with who 3 bets a fairly normal range but if you cap preflop he will give up overcards on the flop for fear of domination; hence the extra small bet invested causes your opponent to make a large post flop play error because said opponent has not thought about how he is being exploited; he is a victim of iniative, a man made concept that does not actually exist in a game theory model, but only in the minds of the blissfully ignorant.

[/ QUOTE ]

Couple of points:

1. Yes, 'initiative' exists only in the mind, but hell, the entire game of poker is a 'man-made' mental game. It's not a physical contest. So all mental concepts become real.

2. You claim 'initiative' does not exist in a game theory model. I believe it does. And it has to do with risk. In your example of capping pre-flop and folding out the three-better on the flop, what has happens on the flop is that your continuation bet puts the first claim on the pot. If he has nothing and he wants to 'reclaim' that pot, he now has to put in at least two bets. In essence he has to risk more than you did, and most people tend to be risk-averse. Now folding automatically with overcard(s) in this situation is incorrect, and is the sign of a weak player, but is understandable in this context and is a good example of the value of 'initiative', whether it's just purely a mind-game or not.

3. I also want to try to understand why 'initiative' exists. In other words, why don't we all just play as if we don't remember what happened the previous round, especially if the previous round was just pre-flop play which really doesn't narrow your hand range down much for the trickier players. (Understanding why it exists is not important to play good poker, as long you know it's real and how to exploit it.)
And my theory about why it exist is that we tend to fight much harder to keep what is ours than to take something away from someone else. A man may risk his life fighting off a robber, but would never think of stealing something that is not his. This is also true in the animal kingdom where a smaller animal will defend his burrow much more fiercely than he would invade another burrow, and hence can often drive off a bigger invader.
Hence when we show aggression early on (pre-flop), we are laying initial claim on the pot. Whoever has put in that last bet has laid the last claim and it is recognized as such by both parties. Now both parties will also recognize that this defender will be more tenacious in defending his claim. This oftentimes will have the effect of getting the other party to back off of and letting the guy with 'initiative' claim 'his' pot.
Now is all this merely a psychological by-product of a more basic mental mechanism? Absolutely! But it is nonetheless real and very important.

[elindauer]

[ QUOTE ]
Help is not enough. Nothing can undo positional disadvantage.

[/ QUOTE ]

Tommy: having the initiative causes you to win more
Eric: if you think this, why do you play so passively out of position?
Tommy: because having position causes you to win more


I hope you see that this is not an answer. Just because he has the advantage of position doesn't mean that you have to grant him some of your (perceived) advantages too.

You suggest that playing passively only grants him his position edge, but this contradicts your earlier statement that having the initiative is a fundamental advantage. If you play POOP, then you are conceding him both his positional advantage and the initiative advantage you claim exists. Oddly, that initiative advantage probably does exist when you play that way.


By the way, I find the it hilarious that it was you and not a detractor who founded the acronym POOP. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

-Eric

[elindauer]

.

[elindauer]

Hi phish,

[ QUOTE ]
1. Yes, 'initiative' exists only in the mind, but hell, the entire game of poker is a 'man-made' mental game...

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you are confused. The point being made is that certain advantages provide you with a tangible EV edge against perfect playing opponents, and others do not. For example, having aces gives you an EV edge. Using a lucky card protector does not. The question in this thread is simply to which category does "having the initiative" belong.

[ QUOTE ]
2. You claim 'initiative' does not exist in a game theory model. I believe it does...

[/ QUOTE ]

ok. I'm interested. Convince me, sticking to the assumption that your opponent plays perfect incomplete-information poker.

[ QUOTE ]
...It has to do with risk. In your example ... your continuation bet puts the first claim on the pot. If he has nothing and he wants to 'reclaim' that pot, he now has to put in at least two bets.

[/ QUOTE ]

You have assumed that the 3-bettor must always check-raise to put a claim on the pot. Why can't he just bet the flop? This would seem to grant him all the same advantages, without the need to have "the initiative" going into this round.

Further, why does he have to put a "claim on the pot" at all? Can't he just call?

[ QUOTE ]
In essence he has to risk more than you did, and most people tend to be risk-averse.

[/ QUOTE ]

This argument is invalid in a discussion of game theory. It's just another way of saying that bad playing makes the initiative real, which we already all agree is true.


[ QUOTE ]
I also want to try to understand why 'initiative' exists.... Understanding why it exists is not important to play good poker, as long you know it's real and how to exploit it.

[/ QUOTE ]

You got it! That's the whole point I'm trying to make. I don't think it does exist, but if I'm proven wrong, then I want to understand exactly why it does so I can improve my poker. Either way, I just want to know the answer.

[ QUOTE ]
my theory about why it exist is that we tend to fight much harder to keep what is ours than to take something away from someone else.

[/ QUOTE ]

This misses the point. You are too focused on practical reasons why it exists. The key question is whether it would exist if your opponent played perfectly.


good luck.
eric

[phish]

Hi,

I don't want to address all your points, only your question of whether it exists against a perfect opponent.

1. Who really cares? There is no such thing as a perfect opponent. But it is real against imperfect opponents and that's what's important.

2. And I believe it does exist even against a perfect opponent, by the very mechanism which I tried to laid out not too articulately above. And this is the mechanism of psychological expectation and risk. If both opponents have the expectation that the guy w/ 'initiative' will be more tenacious, then it does become riskier/costlier for the other guy to try to steal the pot. And if our 'perfect opponents' are risk-adverse (don't know if a perfect opponent must also be risk-neutral), then he would be slightly more likely to surrender with nothing than to continue to play as if he was ignorant of previous action.

You want to play big pots in position so having the initiative is good. OOP you dont want to play a big pot so having the initiative isnt good.

[J_V]

No it's not a FUNDAMENTAL advantage - that should be clear as the answer is semantics.

There are many problems arrising here; If iniative exists and has strength, yet both people realize that iniative is merely WHO BETS FIRST AND NOT WHO RAISED ON THE LAST ROUND, then being out of position is the key to establishing the iniative; and hence you should want to build pots out of position. This doesn't make sense (I am assuming players who can exploit strategies that are reliant on iniative (like capping with hands that don't have equity that warrant capping, as i explained above).

However, I am also beginning to believe that the common wisdom that building pots in position is always good, is not entirely complete. Sure more bets are going in when you have position (which means the bets are going in with a slightly greater EV (but is this slightly negated by the OOP players ability to seaze the iniative first?), but by the same token, mistakes made in big pots are less magnified than mistakes made in small pots - as a pot grows larger preflop, the opponent is more able to realize his hands true equity as it becomes increasingly correct to see showdown; but in small pots, when the guy in position bets, the guy out of position can't call because he doesn't have the correct pot odds; the bigger the pot, subsequent bets are less important; the question is does winning a large pot because you're in position (that you wouldn't have won otherwise) make up for this? I have NFI. Neverwin raises 100% on button. Fantasizo seems to call most the time. I think it depends on the opponent as well.

Disclaimer: This is just a rambling of difficult to explain ideas; I don't know if any of the claims I make are true but they are certainly thought provoking to myself; I have assumed heads up play in all situations. But the big point is that if iniative has value, and it is merely who acts first, not who acted first last round, then the guy out of position has the ability to realize the equity of iniative more immediately; the guy out of position has position to compensate.

[DcifrThs]

[ QUOTE ]
don't know if a perfect opponent must also be risk-neutral

[/ QUOTE ]

a perfect opponent must be risk neutral

Barron

[vmacosta]

Interesting post.

It's clear that "initiative" is merely a psychological concept like "table image" or "stereotyping". Thus it is not real under any logical framework so game theory could never be dynamic enough to consider it....

However, try telling that [initiative isn't real] to the guy with that sinking feeling you get when taking a shot at a bigger limit, losing a few big pots, and then being isolated OOP repeatedly by aggressive regulars!

The advantage of having the lead/initiative is that you've represented the top range of hands. This isn't always true, but in many scenarios, the best hands are more likely to raise/bet than to call/check.

Preflop is the most obvious example. If I open raise on the button preflop and get called by the BB, both our ranges are wide, but mine is more likely to include QQ+ than the BB's. This is a big advantage for us. If BB were to reraise preflop and I just call, then this changes around.

[stinkypete]

[ QUOTE ]
Is having the initiative a fundamental advantage?

Perhaps the most compelling argument against the initiative being important in and of itself is this: any player could defeat this advantage by simply forgetting who raised last round!

[/ QUOTE ]

Is having a good table image a fundamental advantage?

Perhaps the most compelling argument against table image being important in and of itself is this: any player could defeat this advantage by simply ignoring everyone's playing tendencies!

This is incorrect; not paying attention to someone's playing tendencies is clearly a bad thing to do, even if your opponent is very aware that you are paying attention to his playing tendencies; if he understands that iniative does not exist however, it stops being profitable for you to make moves purely based on the idea that it exists (for example, if you told him your exact hand range raising from the button, and told him you were always going to bet if he checked to you, obviously he would ignore iniative and play against your hand range.

But the idea that your hand range is guaranteed to be better because you raised on the last round (you would never call with queens, but you would raise them) has merit; however, does it not also make sense that if the opponent has an accurate interpretation of your hand range, he should make his moves purely based on the merit of your hand range and not on the merit of his 'represented' hand range?

EG: I am not going to start folding ace high on the flop against someone who raises 100% of hands preflop and then always cont bets; this is because he has demonstrated that his hand range is weaker than his betting represents. His 'seizing the iniative', as a ploy, is useless, because as anyone with a clue will realize, his hand range is disconnected to his betting patterns pre and on the flop (hence initiative does not exist).

The converse is also true; If your opponent plays 10% preflop, and only continuation bets when his hand makes top pair or better, his seizing the iniative will be effective, as it is clearly representing a strong hand range (and that is exactly what it is).

Since you are playing against a wide range of hands rather than a single hand in most these situations (pre and post flop, by the turn and river, often you have reads that help you narrow it down to less, perhaps even one, hand), it becomes effective for this tight player to add in more and more hands that are 'protected' by the stronger hand range; for example, if he adds 27s (think, Shania), this hand will become immediately profitable if the opponent fails to adjust, since most players will still always fold anything that doesn't beat top pair and play anything that does; but there is a point where he SHOULD play hands that don't beat top pair (once enough non-top pair hands are added). At this point, if an opponent does not start playing non-top pair hands, he is becoming a victim of iniative;

Is this why changing gears is so powerful heads up? Because you force your opponent to constantly play incorrectly, to become a victim of iniative? Since it will never be feasible to correctly interpret the opponents hand range pre / on the flop unless they are aggressive all the time (read, neverwin heads up on button = 100% raise preflop quite often), is iniative a fundamental advantage since an opponent can NEVER tell how loose or tight you are playing at that exact moment because of variance? (except in extreme cases, as above). I have no idea.

[fearme]

a person on the button always slowplays a 9? that i have to disagree entirely, i know many who will fastplay anything, and im one of them

[elindauer]

[ QUOTE ]
Is having a good table image a fundamental advantage?

Perhaps the most compelling argument against table image being important in and of itself is this: any player could defeat this advantage by simply ignoring everyone's playing tendencies!

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you are using this as a counter-example to prove that the initiative is an advantage. I might argue that all you're proving is that "having a good table image" is not a fundamental advantage either.

Having a good table image is only useful if you can use it to convince your opponents to make exploitable mistakes, convincing them, for example, that you would never bluff in a particular spot even though you should. If they just ignore your weak-tight image and play as though you will bluff correctly, then your "table image advantage" has been negated.

-Eric

[elindauer]

[ QUOTE ]
a person on the button always slowplays a 9? that i have to disagree entirely, i know many who will fastplay anything, and im one of them

[/ QUOTE ]

The example was for a particular hypothetical player to show how it's hand ranges, and not the initiative, that matter. Of course it's the case that some people play trips fast.

-Eric

[elindauer]

[ QUOTE ]
If I open raise on the button preflop and get called by the BB, both our ranges are wide, but mine is more likely to include QQ+ than the BB's.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's this kind of thing that makes it an advantage. But what if the BB decides to not always 3-bet his big hands preflop? Then the BB's hand range, even after just calling, can still include a number of big hands. He could even do this often enough that it is he that would be more justified in making a "continuation bet" at the flop. If playing this way causes your opponent with a weaker hand range to consistently get stubborn and pay off a bunch of bets, all the better.

See how recognizing that the initiative may not actually be a fundamental advantage changes our strategy? Now, if you are the big blind, you know you can take steps to ensure that the pfr does not gain any advantage by having the initiative. You know this is possible, you just have to figure out what those steps are. That would be the next conversation after this thread...

-Eric

[stinkypete]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Is having a good table image a fundamental advantage?

Perhaps the most compelling argument against table image being important in and of itself is this: any player could defeat this advantage by simply ignoring everyone's playing tendencies!

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you are using this as a counter-example to prove that the initiative is an advantage. I might argue that all you're proving is that "having a good table image" is not a fundamental advantage either.

Having a good table image is only useful if you can use it to convince your opponents to make exploitable mistakes, convincing them, for example, that you would never bluff in a particular spot even though you should. If they just ignore your weak-tight image and play as though you will bluff correctly, then your "table image advantage" has been negated.

-Eric

[/ QUOTE ]

my original intent was to post it as a counter-example, but as i was writing it out, i realized exactly what you said. i posted it anyway though cuz it made me think about your argument differently, which originally struck me as completely wrong.

but anyway, my take on it is that you're correct, initiative isn't really a fundamental advantage. but initiative and hand ranges are not independent. initiative implies a certain hand range, which is where the advantage comes from.

[Johnnyj580]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The button checks and raises

[/ QUOTE ]

FLOOR!

[/ QUOTE ]


LOL . . .NH sir

[elindauer]

[ QUOTE ]
but anyway, my take on it is that you're correct, initiative isn't really a fundamental advantage. but initiative and hand ranges are not independent. initiative implies a certain hand range, which is where the advantage comes from.

[/ QUOTE ]

Absolutely right. The thing I'm driving at is that they are correlated, but they are subtly different, and it's huge to recognize this difference.

In most games, initiative is an inherent advantage because opponents play too tight and too passive against the hand range of the guy with the initiative. Understanding this lets you do many things:

- stop playing that way when you do not have the initiative
- recognize when players are not giving you this edge so you can slow down on the most marginal bets and raises which are now losing
- recognize to what degree players ARE giving you this edge so you can speed up on some close decisions and make more money

-Eric