Is having the initiative a fundamental advantage?

[elindauer]

Hi phish,

[ QUOTE ]
1. Yes, 'initiative' exists only in the mind, but hell, the entire game of poker is a 'man-made' mental game...

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you are confused. The point being made is that certain advantages provide you with a tangible EV edge against perfect playing opponents, and others do not. For example, having aces gives you an EV edge. Using a lucky card protector does not. The question in this thread is simply to which category does "having the initiative" belong.

[ QUOTE ]
2. You claim 'initiative' does not exist in a game theory model. I believe it does...

[/ QUOTE ]

ok. I'm interested. Convince me, sticking to the assumption that your opponent plays perfect incomplete-information poker.

[ QUOTE ]
...It has to do with risk. In your example ... your continuation bet puts the first claim on the pot. If he has nothing and he wants to 'reclaim' that pot, he now has to put in at least two bets.

[/ QUOTE ]

You have assumed that the 3-bettor must always check-raise to put a claim on the pot. Why can't he just bet the flop? This would seem to grant him all the same advantages, without the need to have "the initiative" going into this round.

Further, why does he have to put a "claim on the pot" at all? Can't he just call?

[ QUOTE ]
In essence he has to risk more than you did, and most people tend to be risk-averse.

[/ QUOTE ]

This argument is invalid in a discussion of game theory. It's just another way of saying that bad playing makes the initiative real, which we already all agree is true.


[ QUOTE ]
I also want to try to understand why 'initiative' exists.... Understanding why it exists is not important to play good poker, as long you know it's real and how to exploit it.

[/ QUOTE ]

You got it! That's the whole point I'm trying to make. I don't think it does exist, but if I'm proven wrong, then I want to understand exactly why it does so I can improve my poker. Either way, I just want to know the answer.

[ QUOTE ]
my theory about why it exist is that we tend to fight much harder to keep what is ours than to take something away from someone else.

[/ QUOTE ]

This misses the point. You are too focused on practical reasons why it exists. The key question is whether it would exist if your opponent played perfectly.


good luck.
eric

[phish]

Hi,

I don't want to address all your points, only your question of whether it exists against a perfect opponent.

1. Who really cares? There is no such thing as a perfect opponent. But it is real against imperfect opponents and that's what's important.

2. And I believe it does exist even against a perfect opponent, by the very mechanism which I tried to laid out not too articulately above. And this is the mechanism of psychological expectation and risk. If both opponents have the expectation that the guy w/ 'initiative' will be more tenacious, then it does become riskier/costlier for the other guy to try to steal the pot. And if our 'perfect opponents' are risk-adverse (don't know if a perfect opponent must also be risk-neutral), then he would be slightly more likely to surrender with nothing than to continue to play as if he was ignorant of previous action.

You want to play big pots in position so having the initiative is good. OOP you dont want to play a big pot so having the initiative isnt good.

[J_V]

No it's not a FUNDAMENTAL advantage - that should be clear as the answer is semantics.

There are many problems arrising here; If iniative exists and has strength, yet both people realize that iniative is merely WHO BETS FIRST AND NOT WHO RAISED ON THE LAST ROUND, then being out of position is the key to establishing the iniative; and hence you should want to build pots out of position. This doesn't make sense (I am assuming players who can exploit strategies that are reliant on iniative (like capping with hands that don't have equity that warrant capping, as i explained above).

However, I am also beginning to believe that the common wisdom that building pots in position is always good, is not entirely complete. Sure more bets are going in when you have position (which means the bets are going in with a slightly greater EV (but is this slightly negated by the OOP players ability to seaze the iniative first?), but by the same token, mistakes made in big pots are less magnified than mistakes made in small pots - as a pot grows larger preflop, the opponent is more able to realize his hands true equity as it becomes increasingly correct to see showdown; but in small pots, when the guy in position bets, the guy out of position can't call because he doesn't have the correct pot odds; the bigger the pot, subsequent bets are less important; the question is does winning a large pot because you're in position (that you wouldn't have won otherwise) make up for this? I have NFI. Neverwin raises 100% on button. Fantasizo seems to call most the time. I think it depends on the opponent as well.

Disclaimer: This is just a rambling of difficult to explain ideas; I don't know if any of the claims I make are true but they are certainly thought provoking to myself; I have assumed heads up play in all situations. But the big point is that if iniative has value, and it is merely who acts first, not who acted first last round, then the guy out of position has the ability to realize the equity of iniative more immediately; the guy out of position has position to compensate.

[DcifrThs]

[ QUOTE ]
don't know if a perfect opponent must also be risk-neutral

[/ QUOTE ]

a perfect opponent must be risk neutral

Barron

[vmacosta]

Interesting post.

It's clear that "initiative" is merely a psychological concept like "table image" or "stereotyping". Thus it is not real under any logical framework so game theory could never be dynamic enough to consider it....

However, try telling that [initiative isn't real] to the guy with that sinking feeling you get when taking a shot at a bigger limit, losing a few big pots, and then being isolated OOP repeatedly by aggressive regulars!

The advantage of having the lead/initiative is that you've represented the top range of hands. This isn't always true, but in many scenarios, the best hands are more likely to raise/bet than to call/check.

Preflop is the most obvious example. If I open raise on the button preflop and get called by the BB, both our ranges are wide, but mine is more likely to include QQ+ than the BB's. This is a big advantage for us. If BB were to reraise preflop and I just call, then this changes around.

[stinkypete]

[ QUOTE ]
Is having the initiative a fundamental advantage?

Perhaps the most compelling argument against the initiative being important in and of itself is this: any player could defeat this advantage by simply forgetting who raised last round!

[/ QUOTE ]

Is having a good table image a fundamental advantage?

Perhaps the most compelling argument against table image being important in and of itself is this: any player could defeat this advantage by simply ignoring everyone's playing tendencies!

This is incorrect; not paying attention to someone's playing tendencies is clearly a bad thing to do, even if your opponent is very aware that you are paying attention to his playing tendencies; if he understands that iniative does not exist however, it stops being profitable for you to make moves purely based on the idea that it exists (for example, if you told him your exact hand range raising from the button, and told him you were always going to bet if he checked to you, obviously he would ignore iniative and play against your hand range.

But the idea that your hand range is guaranteed to be better because you raised on the last round (you would never call with queens, but you would raise them) has merit; however, does it not also make sense that if the opponent has an accurate interpretation of your hand range, he should make his moves purely based on the merit of your hand range and not on the merit of his 'represented' hand range?

EG: I am not going to start folding ace high on the flop against someone who raises 100% of hands preflop and then always cont bets; this is because he has demonstrated that his hand range is weaker than his betting represents. His 'seizing the iniative', as a ploy, is useless, because as anyone with a clue will realize, his hand range is disconnected to his betting patterns pre and on the flop (hence initiative does not exist).

The converse is also true; If your opponent plays 10% preflop, and only continuation bets when his hand makes top pair or better, his seizing the iniative will be effective, as it is clearly representing a strong hand range (and that is exactly what it is).

Since you are playing against a wide range of hands rather than a single hand in most these situations (pre and post flop, by the turn and river, often you have reads that help you narrow it down to less, perhaps even one, hand), it becomes effective for this tight player to add in more and more hands that are 'protected' by the stronger hand range; for example, if he adds 27s (think, Shania), this hand will become immediately profitable if the opponent fails to adjust, since most players will still always fold anything that doesn't beat top pair and play anything that does; but there is a point where he SHOULD play hands that don't beat top pair (once enough non-top pair hands are added). At this point, if an opponent does not start playing non-top pair hands, he is becoming a victim of iniative;

Is this why changing gears is so powerful heads up? Because you force your opponent to constantly play incorrectly, to become a victim of iniative? Since it will never be feasible to correctly interpret the opponents hand range pre / on the flop unless they are aggressive all the time (read, neverwin heads up on button = 100% raise preflop quite often), is iniative a fundamental advantage since an opponent can NEVER tell how loose or tight you are playing at that exact moment because of variance? (except in extreme cases, as above). I have no idea.