Is having the initiative a fundamental advantage?

Agree with everything you just said qutie strongly: I especially agree with how looking at how there is no inherent advantage to iniative helps you realize that the EV created by iniative is purely a product of the opponents misplay; primarily their ineptitude to play 'correctly' against your hand range.

EG; this includes stuff like calling with KQ on an ace high flop with the right pot odds and a wide enough raising range; or even raising it; given that the raisers range isn't actually that likely to have an ace, even though them taking the iniative may suggest they do).

An example of exploiting iniative I have used frequently is against a fairly tight player we play 3 handed with who 3 bets a fairly normal range but if you cap preflop he will give up overcards on the flop for fear of domination; hence the extra small bet invested causes your opponent to make a large post flop play error because said opponent has not thought about how he is being exploited; he is a victim of iniative, a man made concept that does not actually exist in a game theory model, but only in the minds of the blissfully ignorant.

[Tommy Angelo]

"Wouldn't [taking the initiative] help negate your positional disadvantage?"

Help is not enough. Nothing can undo positional disadvantage. Checkraising can't. Taking the initiative can't. That's because positional disadvantage is just there. It doesn't change. And someone always has it. When I choose to play POOP (passively out of position), I'm merely conceding to the other guy exactly what he has coming, positionally, and nothing more.

[Lestat]

[ QUOTE ]
"Wouldn't [taking the initiative] help negate your positional disadvantage?"

Help is not enough. Nothing can undo positional disadvantage. Checkraising can't. Taking the initiative can't. That's because positional disadvantage is just there. It doesn't change. And someone always has it. When I choose to play POOP (passively out of position), I'm merely conceding to the other guy exactly what he has coming, positionally, and nothing more.





[/ QUOTE ]

All true. But I hope you'll agree that there are many ways to reduce or even offset positional disadvantage against inferior players.

[Dazarath]

Isn't the free card play related to the idea of taking the initiative? If opponents completely ignore the idea of the last aggressor on the previous streets (ie. people who donk bet hands they like, regardless of the previous action), then the free card play becomes useless. But as it stands, it is a useful play in certain situations, and I believe that this is because when we make this play, we are trying to represent a hand range better than the hands of our opponents. (It's also taking advantage of the fact that just about everyone loves to checkraise.) So yes, you could say that this is taking advantage of our opponent's bad play. But so is all of poker.

[andyfox]

"I hope you'll agree that there are many ways to reduce or even offset positional disadvantage against inferior players."

Not to respond for Tommy, but I can tell you from playing with him that he does. Also note that he says "when I choose to play POOP," implying that there are times he doesn't play that way.

[Lestat]

I figured. It goes without saying. No one of his caliber plays POOP all the time. I've never played with him (to my knowledge), but I highly suspect that it's mostly the *iffy* hands Tommy plays that make it on herem which cause such an uproar. But that's the way it should be, since that is what stimulates debate.

[Lestat]

What I'm saying is that some players (very good players) can punish you more severely for trying to take the initiative when out of position. They will also make better reads and crisper laydowns when in bad shape. Against these type of players, you have to be more careful about trying to seize the initiative, lest you punish yourself.

Against other players, it is precisely important to take the initiative if they won't punish a hand that's in trouble, or will possibly fold a better hand, or will allow a worse hand to draw out cheaply, or will allow a worse hand to fold by announcing when it's in trouble, etc. This is all I meant.

[phish]

[ QUOTE ]
Agree with everything you just said qutie strongly: I especially agree with how looking at how there is no inherent advantage to iniative helps you realize that the EV created by iniative is purely a product of the opponents misplay; primarily their ineptitude to play 'correctly' against your hand range.

EG; this includes stuff like calling with KQ on an ace high flop with the right pot odds and a wide enough raising range; or even raising it; given that the raisers range isn't actually that likely to have an ace, even though them taking the iniative may suggest they do).

An example of exploiting iniative I have used frequently is against a fairly tight player we play 3 handed with who 3 bets a fairly normal range but if you cap preflop he will give up overcards on the flop for fear of domination; hence the extra small bet invested causes your opponent to make a large post flop play error because said opponent has not thought about how he is being exploited; he is a victim of iniative, a man made concept that does not actually exist in a game theory model, but only in the minds of the blissfully ignorant.

[/ QUOTE ]

Couple of points:

1. Yes, 'initiative' exists only in the mind, but hell, the entire game of poker is a 'man-made' mental game. It's not a physical contest. So all mental concepts become real.

2. You claim 'initiative' does not exist in a game theory model. I believe it does. And it has to do with risk. In your example of capping pre-flop and folding out the three-better on the flop, what has happens on the flop is that 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. In essence he has to risk more than you did, and most people tend to be risk-averse. Now folding automatically with overcard(s) in this situation is incorrect, and is the sign of a weak player, but is understandable in this context and is a good example of the value of 'initiative', whether it's just purely a mind-game or not.

3. I also want to try to understand why 'initiative' exists. In other words, why don't we all just play as if we don't remember what happened the previous round, especially if the previous round was just pre-flop play which really doesn't narrow your hand range down much for the trickier players. (Understanding why it exists is not important to play good poker, as long you know it's real and how to exploit it.)
And 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. A man may risk his life fighting off a robber, but would never think of stealing something that is not his. This is also true in the animal kingdom where a smaller animal will defend his burrow much more fiercely than he would invade another burrow, and hence can often drive off a bigger invader.
Hence when we show aggression early on (pre-flop), we are laying initial claim on the pot. Whoever has put in that last bet has laid the last claim and it is recognized as such by both parties. Now both parties will also recognize that this defender will be more tenacious in defending his claim. This oftentimes will have the effect of getting the other party to back off of and letting the guy with 'initiative' claim 'his' pot.
Now is all this merely a psychological by-product of a more basic mental mechanism? Absolutely! But it is nonetheless real and very important.

[elindauer]

[ QUOTE ]
Help is not enough. Nothing can undo positional disadvantage.

[/ QUOTE ]

Tommy: having the initiative causes you to win more
Eric: if you think this, why do you play so passively out of position?
Tommy: because having position causes you to win more


I hope you see that this is not an answer. Just because he has the advantage of position doesn't mean that you have to grant him some of your (perceived) advantages too.

You suggest that playing passively only grants him his position edge, but this contradicts your earlier statement that having the initiative is a fundamental advantage. If you play POOP, then you are conceding him both his positional advantage and the initiative advantage you claim exists. Oddly, that initiative advantage probably does exist when you play that way.


By the way, I find the it hilarious that it was you and not a detractor who founded the acronym POOP. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

-Eric

[elindauer]

.