Heads-up, opponent on the ropes: more or less aggressive?

[eastbay]

Wondering how people play at the end when their opponent is on the ropes, say outchipped 2:1.

Are you hanging back a little at that point because you can afford a few more blinds before putting him to a decision?

Or are you banking on the fact that he's going to be calling with fewer hands because it's adios if he loses, and putting him in more often than if it was even?

What do you do and why?

eastbay

[PrayingMantis]

I'm thinking a lot about this issue lately. I had few bad expiriences when my opponents were even worse than 2:1, sometimes much worse, and I kept attacking, kept putting pressure. All it took for them was to call and win 2-3 showdowns as undedrdogs, to get back into the game, big time.

I know there's an approach that advocates "kicking" your opponent when he's down, i.e, put him constantly under pressure, with the idea that one call as a dog will finish him up. But I think a better aproach is to harmonize between aggressiveness, and some patience - that is, waiting for a somewhat better chance to wipe him out. Think of it that way: if he recognizes you are pushing with a wider range of hands, he'll be right to call with a wider range of hands. This will increase the variance of his stack size, and will give him more chances to come back. It seems to me that it might be better to decrease the variance, by playing a bit more carefully at this point. This is, obviously, very dependent on the specific opponent, blinds and stacks.

[TylerD]

As is often the case my answer is; it depends. It depends on many factors, blind size, blind escalation, how much of a lead I have (2:1 is not a HUGE lead IMO), how passive/likely to call is my opponent and whether I think i can outplay them.

A Stars HU game is rarely a crap-shoot, so I stick to my standard aggressive game. On Paradise it is somewhat different, so I push with many more hands, hope he folds a lot and that I get lucky.

[eastbay]

[ QUOTE ]
As is often the case my answer is; it depends. It depends on many factors, blind size, blind escalation, how much of a lead I have (2:1 is not a HUGE lead IMO), how passive/likely to call is my opponent and whether I think i can outplay them.


[/ QUOTE ]

Say 10,000 total chips in play, blinds 150/300. But, I'm asking an "all other things being equal" question, so I think most of the "depends" really don't.

Assume equally skilled opponent.

eastbay

[TylerD]

I think it will always depend on the opponent, but with a 2:1 lead, in general, I'm more aggressive.

[steeser]

I go with tempered aggression. I will definitely put the pressure on him if I sense that he is folding more than he should (getting frustrated with his cards, etc...).

Whenever I am playing heads up and start losing chips, I have to tell myself to be more aggressive, and that tends to work. To me being aggressive in a heads up situation is the key. I love playing a passive player heads up, by raising often, they are unable to put you on a hand.

[DrPublo]

2:1 is not such a massive chip lead, because if he doubles through once then YOU'RE at the 2:1 disadvantage. So I'm being aggressive but not overly aggressive, and I'm cautious to not double him through if its at all avoidable, which it usually is.

Once you get to 3-4:1, you can start bullying quite a bit, and then scale back a little if he catches up in chip count.

The Doc

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

It really depends on how your opponent plays; how he will respond to your aggressiveness. I will back off a bit if I sense my opponent is the type to refuse to be bullied.

[eastbay]

[ QUOTE ]
It really depends on how your opponent plays; how he will respond to your aggressiveness. I will back off a bit if I sense my opponent is the type to refuse to be bullied.

[/ QUOTE ]

He will have the same response as if the stacks were even to your level of aggression.

eastbay

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

I guess I wasn't clear. My level of aggression is entirely dependent on my opponent, regardless of relative stack size. I certainly don't get passive if I'm outchipped 2-1, so why would I if I have the advantage?

I don't like the prevent defense in football. I certainly don't see it as useful when heads-up at the poker table. Getting less aggressive heads-up is like playing not to lose instead of playing to win. That's not to say I raise every pot heads-up, but I do randomize my play. There are exceptions at the extremes of the bell curve, but generally I'll do anything (raise, fold, limp, check, complete, reraise, fold to a reraise, go all-in) at any time with any 2 cards heads-up.

It's a feel/rhythm thing.

[Wayne]

It is player dependant. You have to react to how they are adjusting their game. Can I be agressive and whittle him down? Or can I trap him with a big hand? Is he ready to commit all his chips on a coin-flip, or is he trying to get back in by winning smaller pots?

Never play HU with a predetermined strategy. You must remain flexible and you must adapt to your opponents weaknesses.

[willie838]

i play all in or fold headsup. it's cheap and shitty, but it works pretty well for me.

[Gar Pike]

Do what you can to get your opponent off-balance. They are easier to knock over, then. Think of your chips as a source of power, and figure out ways to apply that power in different amounts and directions. You'll soon get them bracing for a push in one direction, and you can push from a different one and 'voila, zee game, she is yours, hoh honh.

I generally stay away from all-in pre flop, most of the time a 2X BB bet is enough to get 'em to fold, and more so as the blinds increase. Once in a while I'll fold the SB, just so they think I have some standards, but it's usually any two cards. If I don't raise PF, I'll bet/raise the flop, regardless. Any pair on the flop is usually worth a large bet, although the weaker the pair, the more likely I am to fold to a playback. Conversely, the stronger the pair, the more likely I am to come back all-in.

So, the short answer, the agression moving average goes up, the agression level itself fluctuates. Time the fluctuations for best effect.

[Don_Lapre]

Wow, there some great reponses to this post. I'm probably repeating some info but it depends on the situation. 2:1 chip lead isn't that big, I think you definately raise or fold, maybe limp in if your lucky enough to get aces.If the player is good and the blinds are large, say 250-500 at party then I go-all'in or fold. On the otherhand often it seems people play heads up too much like a ring game, waiting for a real strong hand which probably won't happen. In that case I think you can whittle them away with small raises.

DL

[JGalt]

It really depends on the situation. The ability to feel how your oppenent plays is paramount. I personnally think the worst thing to do is to have a set way to play heads up. If your oppenent figures it out he will use that information to his advantage.

[William]

[ QUOTE ]
i play all in or fold headsup. it's cheap and shitty, but it works pretty well for me.

[/ QUOTE ]

Bingo!

We have found the joke of the week /images/graemlins/grin.gif /images/graemlins/grin.gif /images/graemlins/grin.gif /images/graemlins/grin.gif

William /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[eastbay]

[ QUOTE ]
Wondering how people play at the end when their opponent is on the ropes, say outchipped 2:1.

Are you hanging back a little at that point because you can afford a few more blinds before putting him to a decision?

Or are you banking on the fact that he's going to be calling with fewer hands because it's adios if he loses, and putting him in more often than if it was even?

What do you do and why?

eastbay


[/ QUOTE ]

FWIW, this was a leading question. I have some theoretical results brewing that I will share in due time.

eastbay