Short handed play and defending blinds

[Mano]

I just saw an article on playing short handed and defending blinds by Jason Pohl on Poker Pages. In the article he disagrees with some of the advice given in HPFAP. I was just wondering what others take is on this. Here is a link to the article:

http://www.pokerpages.com/articles/p...son-pohl05.htm

[758219]

Just run simulations. I have no trust to reversed implied odds and stuff like that, that puts many medium and higher limit players playing tighter. If they want to throw away EV to have lower fluctuations, that's up to them, but simulations clearly show that such strategy costs money.

About SB vs. BB, at least Mike Caro has articles about them, and they are similar to simulations; you play almost every hand vs. opponents who open-raise from the SB all the time. If they are S&M open-raisers, you might actually do the same, as you know what they have; and if you know how they play those big cards and pairs, I think any nondominated hand will do. If you don't know, it's also possible to play very tight when they raise, as you know they are strong (big cards, often with an ace, pocket pair), why get involved, fold.

[Jason Pohl]

If you don't consider reverse implied odds, then every hand is playable b/c 3:1 odds is enough to play anything against a random raiser. NOT considering reverse implied odds (i.e. that your weak hand will lose money after the flop) is catastrophic though. It is critical to remember that after the flop you will be playing with weak cards that did not connect to the flop half the time, and your opponent will very likely bet if you check.

Mike Caro does generally suggest looser standards, but everything I have read from him is referring to calling in the big blind versus a small blind raiser in a non-Heads Up game. In those cases, I recommended calling at least 2/3 of all hands and still reraising the top 17-25% of all hands.

758219 makes one VERY good point. If your opponent is a relatively tight raiser, then it is a whole different situation. I hope in future articles to address how far one needs to adjust against these types of opponents.

As far as simulations, I wouldn't bet the farm on them. Many authors before me have pointed out the error-prone ways of simulations.

--Jason