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

[yoshi_yoshi]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


1) You are ONLY getting 1:3 on your call


[/ QUOTE ]

That's one reason why.

[/ QUOTE ]

Right, but mathematically, you are getting better than 1:3, and you are in position. So I don't understand your argument.

[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.

[JeffO]

There aren't many hands I will fold in this situation, and your argument is better then most posters are giving you credit for.

[flair1239]

I will defend with a pretty wide range in that situation, Depending on the raiser. To be honest against the "average" player I am probably defending with:

Any ace, Any King, any pp, any two cards 8 and over, most suited no gap and one gap connectors, off suit no gap, and sometimes other random crap.

However, generally if the blind v. blind situation is coming up frequently in a full game, I am switching tables soon anyway.

[Brian]

How many hands you should defend with in the BB vs a SB raise depends largely upon what you know of the SB, as heads-up play often turns into more art than science. While many SB's are willing to raise any two cards, you'll find that many good players will either just complete or fold if you are defending adequately, and many fish or tight players will only raise with legitimate hands. Against these sorts of players, despite getting the great odds of 3:1, you'd be defending too often if you called with any two.

Against an unknown in a short-handed game, though, I do defend quite heavily. I'll play any Ace, King, or Queen, any two cards 6 or higher, any two suited cards, any pair, and some other hands as well. But I wouldn't advise playing hands like 72o, T3o, etc. unless you're playing against someone who raises with any 2 and is willing to put in a lot of bets if you flop a pair.

-Brian

[AndrewtheBold]

I don't think the 3:1 argument works. Sure, 23 may only be a 7:3 underdog to AK, but that figure only matters assuming that you get to see a showdown every time. You aren't going to see a showdown for just one more bet very often. If you are going to show down anything and have to call a bet on every round, then you are only getting 4:3 odds on your call.
Let's suppose instead that you are not going to go all the way with every hand. Now were talking about "poker skills" instead of just math. The trouble is that bad hands aren't just bad because they win less often, they are bad because they are harder to play correctly. So let's say an equally skilled opponent decides to throw out some of the very worst hands - let's say the bottom 20% - and he raises with the other 80%. If you call that raise with any hand, then he will play better than you because he will not have to make all the tough decisions that you will (playing things like 23) even though his skill is no greater than yours.

[jedi]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


1) You are ONLY getting 1:3 on your call


[/ QUOTE ]

That's one reason why.

[/ QUOTE ]

Right, but mathematically, you are getting better than 1:3, and you are in position. So I don't understand your argument.

[/ QUOTE ]

Huh? You just said you're getting 3:1 on your call. That's all you're getting and you can get trapped against a legit raiser from the SB if you flop good, but not great. You have position and that's a valid point, but the fact that you're only getting 3:1 on your call doesn't mean I have to play ANY 2 cards. I'll defend with some semblance of a hand, but not with crap.

[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%.

[TheTimeIsUp]

[ QUOTE ]

4) Some people start calling you a fish.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sums it up.