Heads-Up Limit Hold'em PF

[ALL1N]

[ QUOTE ]
The one way in which your "2 players with 4 chips each" example is problematic (and I realize you're only showing why raising a very high % of the time is right, as opposed to 100%) is the situations where your opponent is holding a top 10 hand... one with equity about .66 or higher.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're missing the point. Your opponent holds a "random hand," so you treat it as a "random hand." This is the same as when you reraise KK preflop, knowing your opponent could well have AA.

[ QUOTE ]
Here, your "always raise" strategy is going to get murdered because you're hemmoraging chips with the worst of it, and your positional advantage later on doesn't do enough to fix that

[/ QUOTE ]

All I have to say is that the cookie crumbles both ways. You and your opponent both have the opportunity to make bets and raises of the same size. You also have a positional advantage. So if your opponent is no better than you postflop, the additional rounds of play can only be additional profit.

[naphand]

[ QUOTE ]
I can understand the anger this induced.

[/ QUOTE ]

Give me a break. From a one-line answer/dismissal, pretending to be absolute truth? It never ceases to amaze me how some posters are so arrogant to think they can just sweep away the opinions of others in a few words. If he got angry, good, because it was his contempt for the opinions of others that induced that return. Respect is earned, not a God-given right.

GETTING BACK TO THE POINT...

I think giving such a very simplified example (ALLIN) will inevitably result in a strongly-biased conclusion. HU is not about just PF, and going all-in every hand.

If you are capable of out-playing your opponent then it makes obvious sense that you should do precisely that on every street. By adopting an indentikit play PF you eliminate the possibility of outplaying your opponent on that street!! You might as well argue "always raise PF from SB, and always bet the flop". This is clearly a tactical cul-de-sac.

I don't buy the "disguise your hand" line, as there are other ways to achieve this using a combination of raising, folding and calling. For example you raise certain hands combinations PF, then switch to another combination (including bluffs etc.), and another. This way your opponent will never know what your raises mean. With a continual raise approach he knows one thing for sure - you have a random hand. You can argue that it is a simple way to achieve this, I can accept that. But this does not demonstrate it is optimal (esp. in ALL situations).

The positional advantage is clear, but again, are you really exploiting your position by always making the same plays? I don't think so. The same argument applies to pocket AA, do you always raise PF? or is it possible to gain extra equity from a particular player by sometimes limping (and applying varied post-flop strategies)?

And while you may demonstrate theoretically that raising 86% PF is optimal (I am not convinced, though I have to say my personal strategy has been to dump the bottom 20% of hands and raise the rest from SBB, so we are not really far apart on this point) it is not a "simple" step to raising 100%. Not only is this counter-intuitive, but counter-logical; if outplaying your opponent involves losing the least on hands with the least value, then it cannot be true that your can outplay your opponent by playing on with those same hands.

Against a player who plays every hand (i.e. does not fold to a raise PF, and plays every SB hand) then a strategy of playing every hand yourself would certainly not put you at a disadvantage PF, but is this really the same as playing optimally?

I am sure everyone has played players who limp every hand PF, while we raise a lot and fold a few. Eventually these players start to fold some hands PF as they are continually getting whacked by better hands. You then get the chance to steal PF. And so on. HU play is highly opponent-dependent and I cannot believe that a standardised PF strategy (that eliminates PF strategy) is optimal in all cases.

I am also slightly bemused by the eagerness of people to blur the distinction between raising ALL hands PF and raising MOST hands PF. There is a difference, and it is not insignificant. It is not insignificant in terms of equity, and it is not insignificant in terms of strategy.

Against GOOD players, or very good players, who have this strategy, I think you almost certainly have to counter it with the same strategy. Though why you should sacrifice PF leverage/strategy is still somewhat beyond me. For me, this may be relevant for players who want kudos from beating other good players, but if I am up against a player who clearly knows what he is doing HU I have a clear choice: stay and try to sharpen my game, while paying a ton of rake and quite possibly having the worst of it, or go elsewhere and find some fish to play. Personally I play to put $$ in the bank, and games against very good players are reserved for those few days I feel I need some learning (and I don't mean by this that I rarely need learning, but that I rarely want to pay through the nose to learn, though sometimes we probably have to).

For those players who absolutely have to beat everyone they sit down at the table with, then they can believe and play what they want if it suits their game plan, but this attitude seems to run against the notion of playing "professionally". Of course there are games that are only accessible by playing world-class of very good players, and there are those players who no longer have concerns about what money they make, and for whom "beating all comers" is everything.

[naphand]

[ QUOTE ]
if your opponent is no better than you postflop, the additional rounds of play can only be additional profit.


[/ QUOTE ]

Always assuming you can beat him for more than the rake, which will probably not be the case against any reasonable HU players.

[Peter_rus]

I miss a point too. If you'ru HU on SB you face random hand on BB.

Your raise for value is only when you have hand better then random. If you're allin you have 3 free streets which increase your value as well as BB value and you still have less than fair share with <50% of equity hands.

If you're not better than random - why raise? Just to lock out giving to BB info?

And what will you do if he start to defend all his hands, but what is the most bad for you - near 40% of hands he will 3-bet PF?

[rjc199]

A good percentage of the time I raise with my crap hands in the SB. I get alot of folds on the flop. If he calls all my bets I get some advertising value out of the bluff.

I had occasionally been getting 3-bet by better hands when doing this. What I do is check-fold the flop if I don't get anything (I may check call to set up a later check-raise), because he told me with his 3-bet preflop that he has a better hand.

[Peter_rus]

Look, if you raise your crap on SB every monkey spot it and start to defend all and start also proceed when have no pair on flop.

You will been 3-betted by hands Q7o (from me for eg) if you raise 86% of hands. Everyone will make note for ya - "raises all". It's exactly the same if you're "limping all". Everyone must play against ya as if you have random hand.

If you fold flop missed you will be punished with your own raises.

I'm certainly don't understand why 86% of SB raises can be correct... Maybe someone explain?

[Diplomat]

Whatever happened with this? Are we going to have a HU deathmatch or what?

-Diplomat

[ALL1N]

Heh who are you asking? I'll play.

[Diplomat]

I was referring to Glenn and Naphand...

-Diplomat

[Peter_rus]

Hi, i want to play with ya HU. I want to improve maybe my HU play with someone who seems to be pro HU player so i think you'll accept bets not more than 5/10. I have no cash in other sites except PartyPoker and have some problems to transfer them to other site. So if you like - you or me can open private 5/10 HU table where we can play HU (i have never open private table before so it would be better if you have one).

Please PM me if you like to.