Question about playing from late position

Bigwig · #1 10-05-2004, 02:50 AM

My question has to do with what hands to open with when playing from late position in different sized tables. For this discussion, assume the games are being played identically in terms of aggression/loose/tight, etc.

Scenario #1 -- A relatively full table (say, 8-10) players. All fold to you in the CO.

Scenario #2 -- A short table (5 players). You're in the CO, and the UTG player folds.

In both examples, everyone has folded to you, and there are three remaining players left to act, including the blinds. Do your opening requirements differ?

Here's why I ask. At a full table, with so many folds in front of you, it stands to reason that the probability of good cards (paint, A's) being located in the hands of the button and blinds must be slightly higher, given that nobody limped or raised, compared to the short handed game, where you are second to act. Therefore, should you open more often, even if only slightly?

housenuts · #2 10-05-2004, 06:16 AM

remember your opponents will have lower calling requirements in the short-handed game. if you raise 4x BB in the full game someone may fold AT, whereas no way they would fold that in the short-handed game.

as for the fact that it's likely the remaining players are drawing from a more high card rich deck, it's most likely true, but the effect is minimal. i don't think you have to worry about that.

read sklansky's TPFAP about the Gap Concept.

Solitare · #3 10-05-2004, 01:55 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Here's why I ask. At a full table, with so many folds in front of you, it stands to reason that the probability of good cards (paint, A's) being located in the hands of the button and blinds must be slightly higher, given that nobody limped or raised, compared to the short handed game, where you are second to act. Therefore, should you open more often, even if only slightly?

[/ QUOTE ]

The problem is that there are many "bad" hands that could contain aces and paint -- A2, K8, Q5, etc. Even hands with lots of paint like KJ, AJ, QT, etc. are being folded from early position.

So I'm not certain a bunch of folds before you necessarily means that all the aces/paint are bunched up in the blinds. There probably is some small shift to the odds, but probably not big enough to act on.

Bigwig · #4 10-05-2004, 01:58 PM

Thanks for the replies.

It's sort of what I was thinking -- that although the odds may be slightly better, it's not a strong enough difference to change opening requirements.

A follow up question:

With that being the case, assume again that you're in the CO at a full table and all the hands have been folded to you. Do you now play as if the game were four handed and you're UTG?

housenuts · #5 10-05-2004, 02:05 PM

i'm gonna say no. here's the reason for this. if there's still 9 people left and you're CO and it's folded to you, you still need to play solid poker. it's still early in the tournament and you don't want to loosen up yet. that's the reason. you don't want to raise to try to steal 15/30 blinds.

TheDrone · #6 10-05-2004, 02:09 PM

I think you know the answer to this, but I will respond anyway. Bubble play is different than full table play with 4 active players. Think about folding equity.

Bigwig · #7 10-05-2004, 02:16 PM

You know, when posing the question, I forgot about the bubble. So that pretty much changes the discussion completely.

Okay, what if there were no bubble? Only top player getting paid, and the blinds were still low enough for a lot of 'regular' play?

I know I'm getting a little off here, but I'm trying to clarify something for myself.

Cheno5 · #8 10-05-2004, 02:46 PM

I think this is a very good question, and I'd like to explore it further. If you're CO, and it's folded to you, doesn't it stand to reason that it's now a four-handed hand? I'm inclined to think that raising with any good four-handed hand makes sense. Sure, the blinds will dictate whether it's worth it to try to steal, but even if you get a caller, you're headsup against someone where it's easy to get away if need be, but your opponent will never see it coming if you hit the flop with your less-than-stellar cards. I'd be very interested in everyone's thoughts.

Bigwig · #9 10-05-2004, 02:56 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I think this is a very good question, and I'd like to explore it further. If you're CO, and it's folded to you, doesn't it stand to reason that it's now a four-handed hand? I'm inclined to think that raising with any good four-handed hand makes sense. Sure, the blinds will dictate whether it's worth it to try to steal, but even if you get a caller, you're headsup against someone where it's easy to get away if need be, but your opponent will never see it coming if you hit the flop with your less-than-stellar cards. I'd be very interested in everyone's thoughts.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, this is what I'm getting at. Often, in this scenario, I'll raise with a large range of hands. Say KJo, as an example. And I'm not afraid of a caller from two of the three players, because they're in the blinds. I'm almost betting any flop, and most of the time, I'll take it down. With a sign of strength, I'll back off. But, it's not something I worry too much about because later when I open on the flop with made trips, I might get check-raised by someone thinking I'll always fold to strength.

But that's the crux of my question. Without too many bubble concerns (depending on blinds and payout), are there any significant changes that should be made?

TheDrone · #10 10-05-2004, 04:54 PM

Depending on the players to act after you, at a full table you can expect more calls (or the occasional reraise from a smart player) in this situation because they almost expect the CO or button to make a stab at the blinds. When 4-handed, a UTG raise usually commands more respect and the GAP concept is more significant. Therefore you will get less calls but the callers will have stronger hands. You should take this into consideration when deciding how to play the flop.

That's my two cents anyway.