Why would you ever fold your BB to a SB raiser?

[yoshi_yoshi]

I used to click auto-fold a lot in the BB when I got a junk hand, but now I am starting to think I'm missing out on some earn. In the specific situation where the whole field folds to the SB, and he raises, I think there is an argument to be made for calling with any two cards. In order of importance, here are some of the reasons why:

1) You are getting 1:3 on your call
2) You have position.
3) At least at my level (Party 1/2 6-max), I've found that if the SB knows that I will defend with any two, he's less likely to raise.
4) Some people start calling you a fish.

Anyways, I've been doing this for a few days, but before I commit to the 'call any two' strategy forever, I wanted to get the opinion of 2+2, and see if there is any serious flaw in my thinking. (I wouldn't be surprised if there is, since I've seen many good players fold plenty of BBs against loose raisers.) OTOH, if you agree, what would be your 3-betting strategy?

To end, I'd also like to say that this strategy is not completely fixed. If you are observant enough to notice that your SB has not raised the last 10 opportunities, and you look down at crpa when he does raise, it's ok to fold.

[csuf_gambler]

sounds like a pretty bad strategy

[IndieMatty]

[ QUOTE ]
sounds like a pretty bad strategy

[/ QUOTE ]

[adamstewart]

[ QUOTE ]
Why would you ever fold your BB to a SB raiser?

[/ QUOTE ]


Because I feel I have worse hand that isn't worth the 3:1 call.


Adam

[dabluebery]

If you changed your question to "Is it a good idea to defend my big blind against a SB raiser sometimes?" then everyone would agree with you.

Sure, calling with any two cards is a good idea sometimes, but usually you've got to take a balanced approach in this situation. Fold, call, 3bet. You're heads up with position, so you can play some marginal hands as one pair will often be good. And not passively folding, showing the SB he can't run over you is good, too.

Just don't go crazy on us and say anything declarative.

Rob

[yoshi_yoshi]

[ QUOTE ]
If you changed your question to "Is it a good idea to defend my big blind against a SB raiser sometimes?" then everyone would agree with you.

Sure, calling with any two cards is a good idea sometimes, but usually you've got to take a balanced approach in this situation. Fold, call, 3bet. You're heads up with position, so you can play some marginal hands as one pair will often be good. And not passively folding, showing the SB he can't run over you is good, too.

Just don't go crazy on us and say anything declarative.

Rob

[/ QUOTE ]


I'm not trying to establish anything ground-breaking here, or say I never again intend to fold my BB to a SB raiser.

However, I am saying that I should be given a _specific_ and real reason to fold, and that reason has to be beyond what my own two cards are. So far, the only reasons I can come up with are 1) the SB raiser is a supertight raiser, 2) the SB is a much better HU player than me.

[stabn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If you changed your question to "Is it a good idea to defend my big blind against a SB raiser sometimes?" then everyone would agree with you.

Sure, calling with any two cards is a good idea sometimes, but usually you've got to take a balanced approach in this situation. Fold, call, 3bet. You're heads up with position, so you can play some marginal hands as one pair will often be good. And not passively folding, showing the SB he can't run over you is good, too.

Just don't go crazy on us and say anything declarative.

Rob

[/ QUOTE ]


I'm not trying to establish anything ground-breaking here, or say I never again intend to fold my BB to a SB raiser.

However, I am saying that I should be given a _specific_ and real reason to fold, and that reason has to be beyond what my own two cards are. So far, the only reasons I can come up with are 1) the SB raiser is a supertight raiser, 2) the SB is a much better HU player than me.

[/ QUOTE ]

3) You have cards that are bad enough where 3-1 isn't really enough. It is fine to expand your range of playing hands in this situation if you want to, especially if the SB is a bad postflop player. But do you really think 100% of hands against the average SB raiser will show a profit in the long run? I don't. Go ahead and pick a range of hands you think will. If you think you need at least a 2 gap suited connector, then play that range, if you think you need more high card value ... etc.

There's obviously a higher range you can play here than vs a button steal when you are in the small blind, so you wanting to open your range of hands in this situation isn't wrong. But like likelyhood of 100% of hands being profitable in this situation is not something i'd be willing to bet on - as a prop bet, or with my chips. Besides all the times you miss, playing 100% of your hands here is going to get you into a ton of sucky situations.

[yoshi_yoshi]

Hmm...ok. So what do you think about this theory: if you are HU and have position on a player, your actual pot equity is going to be more than your mathematical pot equity. This is regardless of any other detail about your hand, including how well it plays after the flop.

For instance, if you have J2o to your opponents KJo your mathematical equity is 23%, but I think that if you at least as good HU as your opponent and have position, your EV should be more than 23% of the pot.

(This theory isn't backed up by any hard evidence)

Anyways, if you go through the raising hands of any typical SB raiser, your mathematical odds with even 32o is not going to dip below 30%.

So unless the theory is very wrong, not just slightly wrong, I don't see how your actual equity in any matchup would be less than 25%. The only way is if you knew for sure this SB raiser is supertight.

[LinusKS]

If you could be all-in before the flop, any two would be ok, but you lose money after the flop, if you play that way.

Most of the money goes in after the flop, not before, so the 3:1 doesn't reflect your true odds on the hand.

Plus, when you play garbage, you still don't have much, even when you hit. Even a poker genius has a hard time making much off bottom pair, no kicker, and most of the time you don't even get that much.

[einbert]

[ QUOTE ]
So unless the theory is very wrong, not just slightly wrong, I don't see how your actual equity in any matchup would be less than 25%. The only way is if you knew for sure this SB raiser is supertight.

[/ QUOTE ]

Your equity against any hand when the hand is played to the river won't be less than 25%, but you're not going to go to the river everytime. You should be more or less calculating your equity against the raiser's hand after the flop.

I would go with something between 60% and 90%.