Heads Up Strategy Question

[Jeff W]

[ QUOTE ]
i could be wrong about this, but if youre going to never 3bet out of position it is to conceal the strength of your hand so that you win alot of bets postflop.

[/ QUOTE ]

I follow dreamclown's strategy to a tee(always call in the BB and always check the flop to the PFR).

I think the basic theoretical reason it is effective is that you reduce the amount of information your opponent has and play for smaller pots when you're out of position. You are therefore counteracting his basic position advantage.

IMO, 3-betting HU OOP from the BB is an exploitative play--not "optimal" as in unexploitable--both in HU matches and in ring games. Same for donkbetting into the pfr HU.

[Danenania]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What does checking behind flops do to counter the strategy?

[/ QUOTE ]

It increases the button's positional advantage.

The button has the option of selectively checking behind and taking the free-card or betting when he likes the flop, knowing full-well that Big Blind's average hand is stronger than it would otherwise be if he was 3-betting pre-flop.

Big Blind's whole game-plan is to forfeit some value (an extra SB) by not ever raising pre-flop, with the expectation that he will get that value back on the flop with a check-raise. And he prefers to do it on the flop because he'll have gained flop information. All Button has to do is not go along with Small Blind's grand plan and check behind him more liberally than he usually would.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks. Good points there. Though as I mentioned even if checking many flops can be effective it throws yet another moving part into the system that must either be balanced perfectly or risk being exploited by a strong player. If he catches on to the types of flops you are checking or picks up patterns in turn play after the check couldn't he manage this adjustment quite well? It seems the beauty of Dreamclown's strategy is he gives up very very little information about his hand until midway through the turn betting. He comes close to automating all his decisions on the first 2.5 streets in an effective manner which of course means mistakes will be easier to avoid and nearly undetectable when they are made. Otoh, an effective counterstrategy to this method is extremely difficult to balance and ripe with opportunities for significant mistakes (which a strong opponent will of course capitalize on).

Interesting stuff here--just some more food for though.

[TStoneMBD]

i always check into the preflop raiser as well unless hes taking alot of free cards on the flop which you never see. i also agree that donkbetting into preflop raisers is an exploitable strategy and i cringe every time i see someone on these forums do one of these donkbets when checkraising is far superior.

i also agree that inflating the pot out of position is a good way to lose money because it increases your reverse implied odds. i find it interesting however that you follow his preflop strategy to a tee by never 3betting out of the BB preflop. ive never heard of anyone implimenting this strategy before. you do this against passive opponents as well? (also, im well aware that players at these high stakes levels are not going to be passive opponents, but that doesnt mean they will overplay their hands against you postflop.)

jeff, by following dreamclown's preflop strategy to a tee does this mean that you often go many bets with weaker pairs postflop? do you think this is a vital aspect of playing this strategy? it seems to me that you would be losing value by smoothcalling AA out of the BB if you cant get your opponents to go several bets with weaker pairs postflop, and generally the only way to get a player to go several bets with weaker pairs is if you coax them into doing so by playing your marginal hands aggressively.

also, when youre playing against new opponents heads up that have never seen you play before, and you pick up AA/KK/QQ/JJ early in the match, you arent smoothcalling preflop are you? the only reason to smoothcall these hands preflop is because you arent 3betting weaker hands out of position and therefore cannot bet your strong hands either. but if your opponent doesnt know that you dont 3bet any hands out of position how can you justify smoothcalling your monsters? do you 3bet AA early in the match and then once you havent 3bet out of position for a while and pick up AA again you then smoothcall?

[oreogod]

[ QUOTE ]


I think the basic theoretical reason it is effective is that you reduce the amount of information your opponent has and play for smaller pots when you're out of position. You are therefore counteracting his basic position advantage.

IMO, 3-betting HU OOP from the BB is an exploitative play--not "optimal" as in unexploitable--both in HU matches and in ring games. Same for donkbetting into the pfr HU.

[/ QUOTE ]

(I typed this in a different order, then reformatted my thoughts, so while these are all off the top of my head as Im typing, hopefully they tie together. So if this seems disjointed, sorry.)


I wonder really if its a strategy to get an aggressive player to literally play and raise every hand, even absolute junk that would be trashed if u played back at them, while then using their momentum against them postflop and forcing them into mistakes.

On one hand u have a strategy that allows your opponent to raise any two in position and postflop allow them to check behind and see turn or bet when there is a flop they like, while also mixing it up of course. Instead of getting 3bet preflop say 30-50 percent of the time, they know they are getting c/r'ed on the flop 50-60 percent. I think that allows them much more postflop manuever abilitiy.

Where as say u start playing back and u 3bet say 30-50 percent of the time w/ a wide range of hands. Now unless they want to put an extra bet in preflop w/ a worse hand (if they are really raising a ton) they have less postflop manueverability. They will muck absolute trash and there will also be bigger pots of course so they have a little more reason to peel.

It really seems the whole point of Dreamclowns strategy is to use the SB/Button's movement/momentum against them, but there has to be a point where that 'advantage' can then be turned around and used against the Big Blind.

You could say that by playing back more OOP, 3betting a wide range of hands, that sb might start tossing or throwing hands away...I usually dont see that happen, except maybe w/ absolute trash hands. So is it worth the value to get the sb to really raise "any two" and giving them a little more postflop "choice" verse playing back at them preflop. Honestly even w/ this strategy a good number of players are still binning absolute junk into the muck, but u never know, they may start playing more junk which could be valueable. This might also be valuable to your opponent who is in position as well. He spends 1.5sbs and can get to the turn almost always with any hand. I mean at worst he's a 2-1 or 3-1 dog to all your best hands most of the time (unless u have a good pair). Yet can bet or check w/ impunity postflop knowing u c/r with air (A-high, overs, etc) and all pairs. If he knows u bluff bet the turn alot he can then raise a decent amount w/ made or unmade hands

As far as exploitable, every or almost every strategy has a weakness somewhere, you just have to find it (usually why, depending on your opponent u have to change frequently or not at all). Against an aggressive postflop player Dreamclowns strategy works, Im sure against more passive players he changes it up...but against a good aggressive player I wonder how this would work. Im pretty sure they'd start checking more w/ weak hands, find other uses for greater postflop flexibility...which could also be bad for them as well as it allows Dreamclown to bet/bluff the turn often, they also might start playing back a lot more which could be good/bad.

Dunno, this post kind of rambles. I have to really think more on this concept though.

[Jeff W]

[ QUOTE ]
i find it interesting however that you follow his preflop strategy to a tee by never 3betting out of the BB preflop. ive never heard of anyone implimenting this strategy before. you do this against passive opponents as well? (also, im well aware that players at these high stakes levels are not going to be passive opponents, but that doesnt mean they will overplay their hands against you postflop.)

[/ QUOTE ]

I should have been more specific in my original post. Against exploitable opponents, I will employ an exploitative strategy. If some overaggro player autoraises two overcards on the flop but is more respectful of a checkraise, I will bet-3bet a set. If an opponent is likely to give no respect to my 3-bet and play back at me hard, I will 3-bet my strong hands pre flop. However, if I am against a player who is pretty tough and who I am likely to play against in the future, I resort to the "dreamclown strategy".

[ QUOTE ]
jeff, by following dreamclown's preflop strategy to a tee does this mean that you often go many bets with weaker pairs postflop? do you think this is a vital aspect of playing this strategy?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, it is critical to play your marginal pairs, bluffs and semi-bluffs fast with this strategy to take advantage of the added EV that comes from having a lot of strong hands in your range when you checkraise the flop.

[ QUOTE ]
also, when youre playing against new opponents heads up that have never seen you play before, and you pick up AA/KK/QQ/JJ early in the match, you arent smoothcalling preflop are you?

[/ QUOTE ]

Interestingly, this depends on whether an unknown is really an unknown.

If I am playing on Party, I assume an unknown is a bad player because I have played with all the regulars and I'd be more likely to 3-bet my strong hands pre flop(including more than just AA-JJ) and then change gears(or leave the table) if I determine that they are a tough player against whom an information reduction strategy is warranted.

If I am playing on a site where I'm not a regular, I'd default to the information reduction strategy, although I think your point about 3-betting your super premiums early in a match might be worthwhile and I'll consider it further.

[Jeff W]

[ QUOTE ]
Im pretty sure they'd start checking more w/ weak hands

[/ QUOTE ]

This is good for us. We have gained information about his hand and he is still keeping the pot small when we are out of position. Even if he balances this with bluff raises and waiting till the turn with some strong hands and marginal made hands, he is still playing right into our hands.

[TStoneMBD]

as oreo mentioned, by just smoothcalling preflop you are giving your opponent an incentive to freely raise every hand knowing he wont get 3bet. if he knows youll 3bet often hell be more apt to fold weaker hands as well as complete more often.

for instance, if he has a hand like Q7o that can limp and call a raise from you out of position, he might as well raise it himself since you wont 3bet him. this way he doesnt give you value the times you hold marginal hands that would much rather see a free flop. if he knows youll 3bet liberally, he may and should start limping more hands. probably not Q7o caliber but hands not much worse than that.

one problem i have with never reraising out of position is that i have trouble playing out of position without the lead. i do not feel comfortable checkcalling flops. i know we spoke about checkcalling flops before being an important strategy but i told you that i usually dont checkcall, i checkraise instead because i feel like checkcalling bleeds money. by not having the lead the opponent will be picking up many pots when i have a hand like queen high and he has 7 high. if i were to 3bet my QTs out of position those pots would be mine.

it could just be that my checkcalling game is underdeveloped, but when im playing against players who regularly checkcall i feel that they are very exploitable because i am picking up so many more pots then them. they rely on me betting their hands for them and spewing chips but i carefully try to avoid that.

i guess the issue with taking the lead is that sometimes youll take down pots you wouldnt have while other times youll get raised postflop and be forced to fold or pay extra bets to see the next street or showdown when a checkcall strategy would have been cheaper. the problem with not having the lead in those instances is that youll often lose bets because you allow your opponents to dictate the amount of bets that go into the pot. i think the advantage of picking up pots and dictating bets is more valuable then keeping the pot small and saving bets postflop.

now i know youre talking about a checkraising strategy and not a checkcalling strategy, but in order to checkraise your pairs you also have to be willing to checkraise draws and most importantly, checkraise bluffs. checkraising your bluffs costs more of an investment then simply 3betting preflop and leading the flop and turn because youre investing 2bets on the flop with little pot equity when a preflop 3bet plus flop bet invests only 1 bet with little pot equity as the preflop bet invested is with above average hot and cold equity. as a result, im sure you fall culprit to often checkcalling and bleeding off chips since checkraising with no holding can be costly.

just to clarify, im not arguing that smoothcalling preflop is a bad strategy. if dreamclown, one of the best HU players does it then im sure it has merit. but there are many other excellent HU players that do 3bet out of position preflop. so that begs the question, is one strategy better than the other, is it simply a matter of playing style or are such strategies dictated simply on opponent's tendencies? i would have to assume that its the predominantly the latter 2. playing style wise, 3betting out of position suits me better as i feel more comfortable with that strategy, but i am also very interested in knowing when to impliment a smoothcalling out of position style against my opponents as well. i really doubt that always using a smoothcalling out of position strategy against tough, aggressive opponents is optimal. it seems like according to game theory, it is better to switch being playing styles simply to confuse the opponent.

[TStoneMBD]

also jeff, do you never 3bet out of the BB HU against button steals in 3handed+ games? because that seems to hold the same concept.

[Jeff W]

[ QUOTE ]
also jeff, do you never 3bet out of the BB HU against button steals in 3handed+ games? because that seems to hold the same concept.

[/ QUOTE ]

Whether I'm playing a HU match or a ring game, I only 3-bet when I feel that my opposition are vulnerable to such a play. So, if someone is likely to play poorly against my 3-bet(either by folding too much when I have a weak hand like JT or by giving too much action when I have a strong hand like QQ), then I will choose to 3-bet.

Otherwise, against solid opponents or any opponent against whom calling maximizes my expectation, I prefer to call and check the flop.

[sammy_g]

[ QUOTE ]
also jeff, do you never 3bet out of the BB HU against button steals in 3handed+ games? because that seems to hold the same concept.

[/ QUOTE ]
In one of the Full Tilt lessons, jdags said he always 3bets or folds against a steal from the SB and virtually never 3bets against a steal from the BB, preferring instead to c/r flops. I found that interesting. He said he preferred calling to avoid leaking information.

I experimented with it for a while and had trouble playing OOP without the initiative. What do you do with 99 on a QT5 flop or KQ on a A97 flop? But maybe I do not have enough card sense to be successful with this style.