Is having the initiative a fundamental advantage?

[elindauer]

In a high stakes game where the players are able to remember things like who raised before the flop, etc etc, is having the initiative, ie, putting in the last bet in the previous round, a fundamental advantage?


By fundamental, I mean an advantage that cannot be overcome by your opponents playing well. For example, having position is a fundamental advantage because no matter how well your opponent plays, he must act first.

There is lots of talk on these boards about "seizing the initiative" and "taking control of the hand" etc, generally defending aggressive play. I still think aggressive play is good, but for other reasons. I'm starting to think that "the initiative" is actually a rather unimportant thing, assuming your opponents play well.


I'd argue that what's important is this:

- the size of the pot
- the hand range you put your opponent on
- the hand range you think he puts you on
etc.

for as many levels as you want to go.



Here's an example in which "initiative" is distinguished from "hand range" to show the point clearly:

I raise in the CO with AA. The big blind calls.

Flop: 992

The button checks and raises. I know that the button would always slowplay a 9 here, so I call with aces. The button now has the initiative, but in fact, having the initiative here has hurt his chances of winning the pot, because it has defined his hand range very clearly. There is no way I can be outplayed on the turn now that he has the initiative.

This is an extreme example, but it shows the point. The initiative in itself is meaningless. All that matters is the hand ranges. The initiative tends to be correlated with stronger hand ranges which leads to folds, but you can easily imagine situations or playing styles where this would not be the case. Imagine a Tommy Angelo-style player who does a lot of calling even with very big hands. Not having the initiative makes little difference in his ability to bluff at various points and take it down immediately.

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!

thanks,
Eric


ps. am I the only person left on this site that is not a moderator?

[astroglide]

[ QUOTE ]
The button checks and raises

[/ QUOTE ]

FLOOR!

[phish]

Your example is really horrible. Yes, having the monster hand is certainly much better than having the initiative. No reasonable person is folding AA against any but the most timid well-known player even for a turn checkraise.

Where initiative matters is when neither has much of a hand. There is a subtle psychological mechanism at work in poker that is partly ego-driven: the person who takes the initiative expects the other player to defer to him. So that when the other player donk bets instead, the first player is 'outraged' and will more likely raise to reclaim his initiative, even when he has nothing. Now the other player also knows this, and unless he's willing to spray some bets, will now be more likely to defer, since he recognizes that his odds of stealing the pot cheaply is much reduced. Now this psychological game is not absolute of course, and hence there is much donk betting with nothing. But in general, it is a subtle understanding that both parties do adhere to to some extent.
Now one could take advantage of this 'understanding'. For example, let's say you flop a strong hand. Rather than checkraise the flop or try for a checkraise on the turn, you may just want to call the flop, and then hesitate and bet the turn. You will often get raised by someone without much of a hand.
But regardless, 'having the initiative' as you call it is a real phenomenon and has a +EV overall.

[Leaky Eye]

[ QUOTE ]
In a high stakes game where the players are able to remember things like who raised before the flop

[/ QUOTE ]

Wow if there are games where players aren't able to remember this please point me to them! [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[Tommy Angelo]

"In a high stakes game where the players are able to remember things like who raised before the flop, etc etc, is having the initiative, ie, putting in the last bet in the previous round, a fundamental advantage?"

Yes. It's a relentless advantage, like being last.

How many times do both players have nothing?

Of those times, how often does the pot go to the bettor?

Of those times, how often is the bettor who wins the pot the same person as the bettor who bet or raised on the prior round?

The answer to all three questions in the games I play in is: most of the time. Anything that wins pots most of the time when everyone has nothing is huge.

And there's other things too, that initiative buys. Getting checked to, getting reads, and becoming last to act.

"Imagine a Tommy Angelo-style player who does a lot of calling even with very big hands. Not having the initiative makes little difference in his ability to bluff at various points and take it down immediately."

I bluff plenty, and lots of my bluffs work, when I have the initiative, and because I have the initiative.

[VanVeen]

The short answer to your question is simply, "no". There is no inherent advantage to having the initiative at any form of poker. "Initiative" is shorthand for exactly what you've suggested it is: having a stronger hand range and making the perceived cost of rebluffing with nothing hands exorbitant. The information leaked on the previous round(s) of betting by all the players involved makes it so. "Initiative" would have no meaning in a game between players playing optimally from a game theoretic perspective.

But that doesn't matter and you already knew the answer. What's important is: Given how the overwhelming majority of players play poker, 'initiative' is something worth seizing and the language used on this forum is entirely appropriate.

You seem more interested in poker from a theoretical point of view while nearly everyone else here is interested in taking money from donkeys. For instance, there is no reason whatsoever to 'balance your hand range' by randomizing 3bet turn bluffs or flop donk bets when even expert players are making easily identified errors that you can exploit with simpler strategies. Even the way in which they adjust is exploitable. You have to keep in mind that they're working with very limited information when it comes to your play, and as a consequence they're forced to overadjust in many cases (because they correlate your play w/other players they've played against who employed straightforward, exploitable strategies). You don't need a non-exploitable hand range: you just need one that exploits your opponents' hand range while hopefully triggering desirable adaptations (or avoiding undesirable adaptations).

Hi Eric,

I agree with you and do not think that initiative is a fundamental advantage the way you define it. And technically I think you are right that all that matters is the pot size, your hand, and the many levels of hand ranges that you put each other on.

I think in practice though it is a significant advantage, mainly because people tend to over-value aggressive actions.

If you're in a game where people auto-call your raises or bets, seizing the initiative is actually a disadvantage since you'll be putting more money in with the worst hand. You should be raising or betting for other reasons, like value, but not to seize any "initiative." And this is the case all the time in very good games.

However, against better players who aren't world class, seizing the initiative works because people generally don't pinpoint your hand range accurately, skewing it more toward higher valued hands than it should be. For example, many decent players will fold an unimproved ace on the flop or turn when, if they actually defined your hand range more correctly, would discover that folding is incorrect since you are capable of "seizing the initiative" with many worse hands. If this suddenly changed and call-downs became the defacto-standard among decent players, then seizing the initiative would become worthless.

Great post btw.

But watch any high stakes game and it has gotten to that point: a much larger range of hands are capped, and most those hands go to showdown since hand ranges are interpreted more correctly; for eg; all flops are cont bet by the pfr. most turns are cont bet.

Therefore you should basically call with anything thats a favourite over his hand range on the flop and turn if you know he will always bet the flop and turn. You should even call with anything that has even the slightest chance, because since the pot is capped preflop most the time, you only need a smidge of equity.

I used to always wonder why people would be calling down at high stakes with stuff like K high, back door flush draw, one overcard, in a 150-300 game that was 3-4 handed, when the other guy had the initiative; but it really doesn't matter about iniative; usually having a couple outs and a small chance of winning at showdown is enough to call down since you KNOW he always cont bets flop / turn.

The problem is when they start checking with the iniative, since you can't correctly interpret their hand range (you have to work out what they bet and check postflop, not just their preflop play, because their flop play was previously automatic); but then what is the point of the initiative if you are not going to use it to bet?

(sorry this is a massive ramble, its a tricky subject)

[elindauer]

[ QUOTE ]
"Imagine a Tommy Angelo-style player who does a lot of calling even with very big hands. Not having the initiative makes little difference in his ability to bluff at various points and take it down immediately."

I bluff plenty, and lots of my bluffs work, when I have the initiative, and because I have the initiative.

[/ QUOTE ]

Then why do you play so @#$!&* passively out of position?! [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

It's an understatement to say that I am surprised to read this post from you, arguing that aggression and having the initiative is so profoundly important in your games. This argument seems totally inconsistent with most of the playing posts I've read. If you think the initiative is so important, then why don't you take the initiative more often out of position? Wouldn't that help negate your positional disadvantage?


I imagine that litte kid in the matrix when I say this:

don't try to take the initiative. that's impossible. instead, only try to realize the truth... there is no initiative.


-Eric

[elindauer]

[ QUOTE ]
There is no inherent advantage... But that doesn't matter... You seem more interested in poker from a theoretical point of view...

[/ QUOTE ]

There's no doubt that I'm interested in the theory of poker. As a purely intellectual exercise, it's fascinating.

That, however, is not my sole motivation. The only way I know to improve in games is to try to learn and practice the fundamentals. In poker, this is quite difficult, since there isn't much agreement on what the fundamentals are, or how you should practice them. In many ways, I've been forced to come up with own idea of what these are.

One way I've tried to understand the game is to understand it's "basic strategy", to try to imagine what the game would look like if it were played perfectly. Not perfectly in the "everybody knows everybody else's cards" sense (although I did practice that when I started), but perfectly in the "incomplete information game theory" sense.

Now, if I discover that the initiative is not really an inherent advantage in the perfect game, this doesn't change my play immediately, but it does change my understanding completely.

If there is no inherent advantage to the initiative, then I can't defend a move by just saying "and I grab the initiative"... I have to acknowledge that I am taking advantage of my opponents bad play to even suggest that such a thing is possible. What is it exactly that he is doing that allows me to say this? Is this actually true for this opponent?

Without seeing that the initiative doesn't mean anything in itself, I can't even begin to contemplate the widespread mistakes in current play that have caused me to take this flawed view. I can't consider what mistakes I'M making against good players that allow THEM to keep seizing the initiative from me and gaining an edge.


So, yes, I am interested in the theory, but a big part of the reason why is so that i can then try to understand the practice. In all of my theoretical exercises, like my recent failed attempt to talk more about game theory and perfect play of a hand, I'm hoping that seeing how it would be done against a perfect opponent will help me understand how to adjust to the actual highly-flawed-but-often-uniquely-flawed opponents I actually face.

Mostly, I'm interested in getting to a place where I know that I will always be able to beat the game, no matter how the styles change with the times. As a pro, that is my job security.

-Eric