Anyone Want to Talk BLINDS?

[naphand]

I have been going through my PokerTracker stats, which seems to be popular thing to do right now, but with particular interest on the Blinds.

This seems such an important area to me, seeing as it is 33% of our game, and the place where we consistently lose money.

I know Schneids will have some useful input here about defending, and I was particularly interested in his qualified remark about defending the blinds "when it is likely HU". Some other postings have shed light on some very important concepts about blind play (such as calling with hands like 78s) which have had an impact on my play, and thinking.

In particular I am looking at:

(i) defending blinds HU to the SB/Button
(ii) defending blinds HU to EP/MP players
(iii) defending blinds multi-way
(iv) raising concepts e.g. when a raise is unlikely push people out
(v) when to attack from the blinds
(vi) post-flop strategy

I still feel I am not on top of this, and a review today confirms a rather confused response on my part. I will spend some time over the next few days with my PT stats for the blinds, and it would be useful to see/talk about this with others.

I will post up my bizarre stats tomorrow as a starting point (and potentially comical interlude), but I don't want to get too hung up on just stats, and get stuck into some meaty strategy discussion. Any interest?

[calvin]

Hey,

See my thread on KQo in the SB. I have some of the same questions as you:

1. How should strong, but not dominate, hands be played from the blinds following a raise from EP? MP? LP? Against a field of limpers?

2. Is it good play to make "moves" at the pot with such hands if you think:
Your opponent can lay down an unimproved hand, or your opponent takes marginal hands too far?

3. How much, if any, value is there in the deception of being in the blind? How easy is it for an opponent to put you on a hand when the board is 944T7, and you check raise the turn?

I like to play from the blinds because I think it is the easiest spots to make check raises and stop and go plays, even without a hand. I also have a hard time giving a blind credit for any hand when I am HU against them, and, for that reason, usually fold to check raises unless I have a strong hand, and in general probably over value my opponents hands from the blinds.

Calvin

[Gramps]

I for one am really interested in what people have to say/what their stats are. Trying to figure out how to properly adjust my blind defense play from full table. Curious what other SH players' "paramaters" are for blind defense.

[Vehn]

uh so you want us to tell you how to play shorthanded hold'em?

[Gramps]

Yes, please enlighten. Maybe write a fricken book while you're at it, just to make sure all angles are covered. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[Vehn]

How about I spend a whole bunch of time and effort on this board explaining in detail my style of play that has won me a bunch of money and keeps me from having a real job, and then Mason quotes it verbatim in his next book (http://www.twoplustwo.com/terms.html) and I get nothing for it?

Hmm, no, I don't think so.

[Schneids]

**MY THESIS STATEMENT. YOU ARE WELCOME TO DISAGREE WHEREEVER YOU PLEASE, BUT I BELIEVE THE FOLLOWING TO BE TRUE**

To everyone, I would say that you have to do what is within your comfort zone. If you presently are rarely playing your BB's to raises, don't suddenly loosen up a ton. Make gradual steps and see what works for you. Liberal blind defense should only occur when you are totally comfortable with your post flop play. Consider this to be a warning label/disclaimer for the following ideas and beliefs:


Naphand, since you specifically mentioned HU, I will tackle that first:

1) Just by going to twodimes.net it is obvious that most hands you can hold are not substantial underdogs to possible raising hands by loose people that raise PF often. That right there signifies you almost always have the "odds" to "draw" to a pair.

2) As I already mentioned in another post, so many of the SH clowns we see, when they raise PF, automatically bet when checked to, or raise when you bet into them (this might be more applicable at 10/20 than 1/2, but I'm sure there's still many aggro clowns at 1/2). Easy money. Yeah, you're going to pay them off sometimes when they do actually have a hand, but they way too often play their hands too hard, far too long, and you will usually put in the minimum when you're behind and extract a LOT more than the minimum when you're ahead (I am careful to not say "and you will extract the maximum when you are ahead" because the goal isn't to go psycho on them when you flop one mediocre pair. The goal is to let them often bet your hand for you because they don't ever quit after they raise PF).

3) Even though I don't agree with a lot of the stuff I've read by John Varhous, I recently read something in a free hand out in my local B&M that I think was reasonable thinking... It went something like this: "When you are HU against the PF raiser, they own the top 1/3 of the deck. You often own the bottom 2/3." This more aptly applies against a tight-aggressive raiser, since you will more often get them to lay down high cards...but it's still very true, whether the cards on the board hit you or not. It's up to you to figure out whether you can get them to laydown or not. If not, then basically you'll be checking/folding a lot when you miss the flop. But when you flop a pair and it looks like a board that could miss a raise, you'll often bet into them, and if they raise, then let them dictate the action the rest of the way, and if they only call, then keep betting until they raise -- and other times you'll just check/call and maybe bet into them on the river if you think they're smart enough to throw in the towel on the river (but still call a bet).

4) Showing down 86o against a raise is fantastic for your table image. Further, say the hand goes like this (you are in BB and HU against a CO raiser):
Flop: J63... Bet, Raise, Call.
Turn: 4[J63]. Check, bet, call.
River: T[4J63]. Bet, call (or check, bet, call). You show a pair of 6's, CO shows his AQo and you take the pot. Meanwhile, the whole table observes and is like "wow that guy played 86 (?!?!) and a pair of 6's (?!?!) against a raise reasonably strong, what a nutcase."

Now, why would you want that...? When I say this, I thoroughly mean this: The shorthanded players who earn the most per 100 hands are the ones that generate a lot of action for themselves. You CANNOT crush these games without having a lot of big pots for both your great hands AND your good hands.

There's a reason that Ulysses can post a hand where all he has is one-pair and he wins a 20+BB pot, and we can all be like "crap man I only get pots that large when it's monster against monster." Part of it is table selection, an even bigger part of it is hand reading ability (and along with that the courage to act upon it), but I guarantee you a part of that is because U's less keen opponents view him as a maniac. Note: I am not advising LAGGING it up. There is a subtle, yet very important difference.

This is one of the easiest ways to ensure that when you bet or raise, people don't go "wow that tight rock just woke up I better get out of his way." Even though 90% of the time when you're at showdown they neglect to notice you had JJ, or ATs for top pair, or KQs and made a straight, or 88 and simply bet it the whole way and got called by a worse pair -- because these hands don't stand out one bit. But, they WILL remember your cheese, which means you can make EVEN MORE value bets because people remember your cheese and call you down or playback at you. They will call you down more with high cards and crap pairs, while you're betting top pair or even mid pair-decent kicker. They will try to bluff you more too, so be prepared for this as well. It is psychologically proven that people most vividly remember abnormalities -- so, give them some cheese that sticks out in their mind, have good hand reading skills (so you yourself don't become a maniac that bets too often in obviously bad spots), and liberally value bet, while making fewer 1BB laydowns when people play back at you and you have a reasonably showdownable hand.



Alright, now that we have gotten HU covered, my simple philosophy with regards to multiway pots is this:

1) I want to play with hands that aren't likely to be totally dominated on all fronts. This means, that while K8o might be a fold, T8o may not.

2) Gappers and connectors go way up in value. Duh. We want to make straights with cards that they don't think we have because they raised PF.

2.5) Similarly, suited cards are fine. 92s and stuff like that might still be a muck.

3) I like acting soon before a PF raiser. They are my ally. So often, when I flop a vulernable pair, I can bet into them and they will raise and help me clear the field. When I do bet, I might be second best right now, but the pot is damn big and I have the odds to draw, and I'd really like to win the pot. The raisers help me achieve this goal, and help me maximize my long-run EV. At the same time -- and I don't know why this is the case -- but there are A LOT of people that believe when someone bets into the raiser, that person must really have a big hand of their own (I know, logically, this makes no sense), and tend to give that player too much credit and get out of their way. Additionally, the few times I do flop a monster hand or monster draw, this position helps me quite nicely. Checkraising the entire field is fun /images/graemlins/grin.gif.

4) Again, twodimes.net is a great place to go to. Tinker around a bit there and figure out what types of hands offer you 7:1 or 9:1 type odds to see a flop against 3-5 other hands (assign some hands of variable strength to your opponents). You'll be surprised at how many hands will get you close to or beyond that point. Even if you're a little short, in most these 6-max games, that's ok. Your implied odds are tremendous if you don't become a Nancy when you hit a strong hand.

5) I'm not going to specifically list what hands I play or don't play, so, you'll have to figure that out on your own. Needless to say, I am guessing I play a few more than 80-90% of the posters in this forum.


As a final clincher, if you don't like the highway of high variance, then get out of the fast lane, because this defense strategy is not for you. You are going to play more, and you are probably going to make some good hands that get sucked out on or pay off even better hands. But you will almost always earn more in the long run if you play well post flop, I am ready to promise you this.

[NLSoldier]

I already knew i was folding way too many blinds, this reply finally gave me the motivation to start defending!

[stripsqueez]

in a low limit game i think you would be best served by playing like a super rock from the blinds

there is little if any benefit in giving action in such a game + playing from the front is more horrible than higher limits because there are more runners which magnifies its awfulness - yes you get better pot odds but pot odds are a crap measure of when to play out of the blinds in my view

in a mid/high limit game you have to defend your blinds from constant attack - in a low limit game your blind gets attacked a lot less

my pokertracker stats for 10,000 hands of 5/10 6 max which is of-course a tiny sample show that i folded the SB to a steal something like 92% - more than any other game - i dont know how to check on pokertracker but i completed a lot less than i do in higher limit games given the 2/5 structure - like a low limit game there was little need to give action in this game - i was winning from the SB over these hands - the party 5/10 6 max game really is the blind school of mid limit short handed hold'em

stripsqueez - chickenhawk

[Schneids]

Interesting that you say this cuz I said a lot of the exact opposite in my post.

I think what you've said is true in a lot of loose passive games, and what I said true in a lot of loose aggressive games.

[Gramps]

An example of implied odds - getting paid off the time you do hit a hand in a multiway from the BB, having paid TWO bets PF. You were saying in the PT Stats thread to stretch out the starting hand requirements a bit even calling two cold - if you'll have others pushing the action, etc. Sure is nice when you get paid off! MP was loose and loved to bluff/bet if checked to - and with UTG raise and button 3-bet, fireworks were likely to fly on the flop. This was probably a close fold for me before. Trying to take the "blinds dress" off when it's right to do so.

Party Poker 5/10 Hold'em (6 max, 5 handed)

Preflop: Hero is BB with 9/images/graemlins/diamond.gif, J/images/graemlins/diamond.gif.
UTG raises, MP calls, Button 3-bets, SB folds, <font color="red"> Hero </font> calls ( <font color="blue"> two cold </font>), UTG calls, MP calls.

Flop: (12.40 SB) J/images/graemlins/club.gif, 8/images/graemlins/diamond.gif, 7/images/graemlins/diamond.gif <font color="blue">(4 players)</font>
<font color="red"> Hero </font> checks, UTG bets, MP calls, Button raises, <font color="red"> Hero </font> 3-bets, UTG calls, MP calls, Button calls.

Turn: (12.20 BB) 6/images/graemlins/diamond.gif <font color="blue">(4 players)</font>
<font color="red"> Hero </font> checks (I've been at this table for an hour, almost 100% sure somebody is gonna bet), UTG checks, MP bets, Button calls, <font color="red"> Hero </font> raises, UTG calls, MP folds, Button calls.

River: (19.20 BB) 2/images/graemlins/spade.gif <font color="blue">(3 players)</font>
<font color="red"> Hero </font> bets, UTG folds, Button calls.

Final Pot: 21.20 BB

Hero has a Jack-high flush. Button has black Aces. Hero wins pot.

...and of the other possible flops...more times than not, check-fold.

[Ulysses]

This is a good post and I agree w/ much of it. Two comments, though.

1) I'm pretty much always mucking stuff like 86o in the BB to a raise.

2) While a number of my opponents do indeed quite likely consider me a maniac, I suspect I'm much tighter than even those who don't consider me a maniac think, especially when it comes to things like defending the blinds.

I'll leave it at that, as more detailed info will just get me abused by Schneids, strip, et al. /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

[Schneids]

[ QUOTE ]
1) I'm pretty much always mucking stuff like 86o in the BB to a raise.

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh man you are missing out, for 86o is a personal fav of mine /images/graemlins/grin.gif. Yeah, I'm probably using some extreme examples to prove a point. I think my general theme is "I'm playing a little looser in my BB than you and right now I think it's working for me, here's why."

[ QUOTE ]
I'll leave it at that, as more detailed info will just get me abused by Schneids, strip, et al.

[/ QUOTE ]
I like to stay off your guy's tables unless I already know of a maniac on them, in which case, I'm simply trying to avoid you as much as possible, because I know I'll get outplayed postflop a fair percent of the time -- unless I happen to flop a set or straight or something.

[Schneids]

[ QUOTE ]
You were saying in the PT Stats thread to stretch out the starting hand requirements a bit even calling two cold - if you'll have others pushing the action, etc.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually I don't remember saying for two-cold. I'd usually fold if it comes around three total bets to me.

[kiddo]

[ QUOTE ]
This seems such an important area to me, seeing as it is 33% of our game

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually its even more. Of my 50K hands I have played 20K from blinds. That is because there isnt always 6 people seated.

[naphand]

Then don't respond. Though I suspect you will be looking into this thread as it develops, just to see what people are saying and, who knows? you might learn something... /images/graemlins/cool.gif

This was an invitation to discuss strategy - not a request to details how to play the blinds yadda yadda in every game. Like the rest of the forum, the generous contributions of some, coupled with the experience and analytical ability of others, leads to some very interesting threads. WE know David Sklansky and others have thought a lot about the merits of releasing information, and given that the books are out (TOP, HFAP etc.) and available to the general public the question begs - do people, having gained access to the information - know how to apply it? (and also, it is clear they saw the benefits of such sharing).

Knowing and doing are not the same thing. Understanding strategy at one level, and knowing how to adapt it in different circumstances, is not the same thing. Knowing how to play a player who also knows what you know is somethng else. And then there is the psychological aspect of the game, and the fact that there are different ways to play the same hands.

I mean, knowing that a diet of Big Macs and Coco-cola will make you fat, clog your arteries, slow your brain, wreck your digestive system and most assuredly bring you to an early (and quite possibly painful, but certainly sweaty) demise, does that stop people eating the stuff? You would think the taste would be enough.... /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

As you have volunteered to not contribute to this thread, can we safely assume you will return the compliment by not visiting it and reading it's contents? or is your approach to this forum limited to the extraction of information for the minimum return, akin to your table play for $$?

I apologise if my request was so general as to cause offence to those who have spent years mastering their art, but I was actually just trying to see if anyone out there would like to talk about blinds, specifically, or examples of blind play. I am happy for this to take any particular format of direction that people wish.

I do hope my request was not made in vehn.

[naphand]

No you are not giving too much away, but a great post nonetheless, that should stimulate a lot of thought. Much appreciated.

My request was never meant to be "I'm off to the deli, what kind of cheese do you recommend?".

I made a fairly general request (plus some specifics) just to determine if anyone actually wanted to talk about this at length, rather than "let's cover everything from every angle", as some may have thought... /images/graemlins/wink.gif

I think your post illustrates one approach very well, without bypassing the need for folks to do their own legwork to refine and apply your theory/opus. Most won't of course (do any work), but some will, and of these a number will find it is not to their taste. Likelihood your post leads to "trouble for schneids": small to negligible. This is no way devalues your post, I just think people over-value information sharing in terms of the strategic advantage it may confer. The information you have given is thought provoking, and to be able to use it this necessarily impies the ability to think, which as we all know, narrows the field of potential opponents quite some.... /images/graemlins/cool.gif

Thanks again, and.....I'll be back

[Gramps]

Other than the (small) chance that an opponent may fold right there, I'm under the impression already after only 15k hands that there's some good collateral value in occasionally making that play - do you guys use it to enhance your reckloose image to get action/set up more value bets on the end? Or is it overrated?

I'd wait til Vehn's SH book came out, but I don't have the patience.

[Gramps]

Ah, you were saying two bets total (vs. two cold) in the other thread. Well...I'm glad I misread it in this case... /images/graemlins/grin.gif

In the famous words of Vince Van Patten, after Mike Sexton just pointed out that the Jx someone is holding is a junk hand, "Ah, but it's suited Mike!"

[Vehn]

My post wasnt really a knock on you although I think this subject is too general. It was really more to alert you that any posts or ideas that you make on the twoplustwo forums can be quoted verbatim without your permission and without any payment to you as per the terms and conditions. Therefore I am reluctant to go into too much general details like this.

[Gramps]

No worries, I took it as fun banter.

[Ulysses]

It's pretty overrated. There's a category of opponents who will always bet the flop and turn when checked to, but will actually fold if they don't have anything. Against these opponents, I'll do this. But most of these guys will call w/ any piece or any draw, so I use it sparingly.

[Catch of the Day]

Dam good post Schneids, best ive seen in awhile...

Catch-

[naphand]

It's a good point you make about the disclaimer, and worth bringing to people's attention. I wonder if it also applies to PM's.

No offence taken, but I have never been one to avoid the chance of a bit of banter. Maybe also, it highlights my over-eagerness to respond to perceived meaning, when alternatives are possible (this does have it's advantages at times), perhaps a sad reflection of my hand reading skills in general... /images/graemlins/blush.gif /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[naphand]

Damn, having pc and connection problems since moving to the new place. Hopefully sorted out in the next day or so (but still no broadband for at least 3 weeks).

Just wanted to say that, as I had promised to get some stats up here. I guess I have to write it up in notepad and cut and paste into the thread to save time.

Apologies also to King Yao for stealing his comments on HU play from a more recent post. Just felt it was very relevant to this thread.

[naphand]

From a thread originally posted by Girchuck.

[ QUOTE ]
Heads up against an opponent who is not very aggressive, but is fond of check-raising the flop with any pair.

What percentage of time should you raise Axs (x - 6 and below) from either position?

[/ QUOTE ]

and a very good reply from King Yao.

[ QUOTE ]
assuming the button has the small blind :

button - raise with Axs everytime, in fact, raise with any ace everytime. it shouldn't matter how your opponent plays. if he folds too often preflop, then that's fine, take his money and be happy...if he calls all the time, then you are likely ahead so putting in some more money is fine...if he re-raises sometimes, that is fine too, because he could be raising with a hand like KQ, and you are ok with that.

big blind- it depends a bit on how aggressive the other player is. if he is raising every hand (which many players will do in headsup), then you need to reraise with any ace all the time. if he is raising most hands, but folds once in a while, I would reraise with any Axs and any A8o or higher. if he is more conservative and actually limps (completes) some of the time, then i would definitely raise when he limps, but only reraise with A8s or higher and ATo or higher.


[/ QUOTE ]

Hope you guys don't mind, but very releavant to this thread. Does this qualify as "blind stealing" /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[naphand]

Some stats for my playing the blinds. Obviously there are all sorts of numbers mixed up here in terms of players, from 3 to 6 players.

I'm going to start by comparing my PokerStars $1/$2 (more recent, 8K hands) for the different blinds compared to UTG. I am filtering out HU games as these are a very different animal and likely skew the results. In brackets are the reslts for 5 and 6-handed games alone.

UTG (always 6-handed):

V$IP 14.71
Win% 7.29
Won$WSF 45.00
BB/hand 0.11
PF Raise 12.15
SD% 48.00
Won$SD 62.50

BB:

V$IP 16.72 (15.56)
Win% 22.84 (20.83)
Won$WSF 27.11 (25.00)
BB/hand -0.15 (-0.15)
PF Raise 7.04 (6.38)
SD% 27.19 (27.46)
Won$SD 50.32 (50.97)

SB:

V$IP 37.35 (35.37)
Win% 14.63 (13.02)
Won$WSF 36.31 (33.88)
BB/hand -0.14 (-0.14)
PF Raise 11.59 (10.27)
SD% 34.49 (33.18)
Won$SD 48.15 (50.70)

The first thing I notice about this how tight I am about putting money in from the BB - very similar to UTG and low PF raise %. This suggests I am reluctant to raise from the BB due to the probability that no-one folds coupled to being out of position. Anyone wish to comment on this? Should I be raising more? My first reaction is to think I should be raising a similar level to UTG - or is the fact that people won't fold and I am out of position something that is a valid reason not to raise (hands like AQ/AJ/KQ/KJ and medium PP come to mind).

SB sees a lot more raising, but here I will often want to knock out the BB and get the extra BB dead money in the pot, so I would expect to see more raising. The raise % is still quite low, it should be up to knock out the blinds, but less due to being in the worst position for the rest of the hand. Would be interested to hear about others' figures for this.

Both SB and BB are losing at a rate I am not comfortable with, I posted about this a couple of weeks ago, tightened up a bit and have had a really crappy week of cards which has magnified the problem. I still think my figs are too high (-ve) even taking out the recent slide.

Obviously in games where you are seeing a lot of flops for free (i.e. unraised PF) then this is not a question of "defence" but more playing out of position, the position of your opponents and their tendencies, plus your ability to read the game.

The questions would like to discuss are:
(1) Should your raise % from the BB be similar to UTG? bearing in mind worse position and the inability to limit the field? or should you only be raising strong PP, AK and good multiway hands like the better suited connectors and suited broadway cards? as is the case with full ring games
(2) Ditto for SB, the worst position but with the proviso that your raise adds dead money to the pot if BB folds.
(3) V$IP - how much is reasonable level of calls from the SB, and should the BB figure be higher than the UTG play % (surely you play all hands that you play UTG? plus a lot of others that you are getting the right pot odds to call PF (such as suited connectors, any PP), or will this be reduced significantly by the hands you fold as dominated by the PF raisor?

Comments, ideas, critique, all is good.