Blind Defense (In General)

[Victor]

[ QUOTE ]
Do you hate it more than when he just calls and then CR the flop ?

[/ QUOTE ]

i really feel this is one of the most important parts of blind defending. reasons for which action has not been discussed in any depth, yet is extremely important when you consider that it dictates play on 2 streets (and the 2 most common streets, i.e.: you will be battling on these streets the most).

[wuarhg]

110k hands @ 10/20:

SB - (.08), VPIP - 32.11%, Folded SB to steal - 85%,
BB - (.16), VPIP - 28.20%, Folded BB to steal - 52.54%, Folded to steal HU - 40.2%

Something interesting sthief pointed out is calling more on the flop and creating bluffing opportunities, especially against players who can fold, prime targets went to sd 30-34% people and who most likely do not bluff 3-bet and get crazy.

I've been experimenting with this myself, say instead of checkraising the flop I just call the flop if it's raggy and i'll go for the turn checkraise with hands like gutshot+overcard, middlepair, top pair, set. It all depends on what I feel I can do. What this does is give you freecards on the turn and if an overcard falls on the river or some draw comes in you can often enough take it down.

Mix it up with a bit of check-call flop and donk the turn and you'll be hell to play against.

[___1___]

[ QUOTE ]
SB - (.06), VPIP - 32.11%, Folded SB to steal - 85%

[/ QUOTE ]

(.06) out of the sb is sick. Lowest I've ever seen for any meaningful amount hands. Very nice.

[ QUOTE ]
Mix it up with a bit of check-call flop and donk the turn and you'll be hell to play against.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'll have to try that a bit. Now finding players who will fold in this game...thats another story.

___1___

[DMBFan23]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I have no idea what you are saying then.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's generally a bad idea to check-raise the flop against the PFR, because it gets you into trouble, and doesn't define anything.

[/ QUOTE ]

if it 'gets me into trouble' then I start doing it with really good hands. if he folds to it on the turn a lot, I mix in semibluffs.

without reads I generally c/r any pair because he's most apt to make a mistake that way at the more passive 5/10 (either folding on the turn with odds or not reraising with he should - especially if he can get a free showdown with a good A high hand. of course, there if I see him do that then I adjust, and etc...but yeah). I don't know what the adjustments will be yet for the very very aggressive 10/20

[wuarhg]

Sorry, it is actually .08. I'm not used to this whole waking up in the morning thing [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

[___1___]

[ QUOTE ]
Sorry, it is actually .08. I'm not used to this whole waking up in the morning thing

[/ QUOTE ]

LOL, that's better. Still very nice...

___1___

[DMBFan23]

one thing about the 3.5-1 that we are getting in a 1/2 structure.

I think alobar is right when he says that the 3.5 dead SB in the pot impacts what hands are profitable and which hands aren't. we are getting some implied odds and those will make a lot of hands profitable on their own, but the 3.5 sb will push some hands into the +EV realm by virtue of the dead money. I'm not sure which hands those are.

not to put words in sthief's mouth, but his pet peeve (which is DEFINITELY one of mine) may be comparing pot odds to pokerstove equity versus the stealer's range, which is complete crap. his range isn't relevant when you have 45s and have to check fold on so many flops where you might still be ahead versus his range. likewise his edge on you preflop isn't relevant when you get to c/r the flop and then lead-3bet the turn.

equity = EV on the river, equity doesn't quite = EV on the turn, equity definitely doesn't = EV on the flop, and equity is in no way in the same ballpark, league, or same [censored] sport as EV preflop. (actually that's not totally true, but I wanted to reference pulp fiction there, it flowed off the tongue)

[Packerfan1]

[ QUOTE ]
agreat player once told me "that if you don't feel like a moron sometimes, you aren't playing right"

[/ QUOTE ]

Then I play right a LOT! [img]/images/graemlins/smirk.gif[/img] Now if I could only apply that theory to life outside poker.

Seriously, good thread. I'm looking forward to learning from everyones hand analysis.

Pack

[ALL1N]

Nice post.

Good blind defence is a lot more complicated than people are aware, IMO. I've only started feeling comfortable using some of the weirder lines recently, and while I feel like I'm still just scratching at the surface (is that the saying?), I feel like I'm creating a lot more opportunities for opponents to make mistakes than I used to, as well as avoiding situations which could force me to make mistakes.

[cartman]

I think it is an important fact that when our opponent steals and then autobets the flop and the turn provided that we just call preflop and on the flop, we are very closely approximating a hot and cold situation if we so choose. After all, if his actions are the same regardless of his cards, then we obviously can't gather anything about his hand from those actions.

In this sense, not 3-betting preflop in a strange way puts us in control of the pot in that we can just call down if we so desire, but we can also dictate more bets going into the pot by checkraising (or donkbetting for that matter) either the flop or the turn. When we 3-bet, it is our opponent who gets to dictate how many bets go in (to an extent) and whether he wants to just keep calling. In other words, even though a 3-bet gives us initiative, it gives our opponent control. Do we gain enough folding equity to make this worth the sacrifice?

For instance, there are a bundle of wannabe pros at 5/10 who, if they attempt to steal and I 3-bet from either blind, are GUARANTEED to either raise the flop or the turn regardless of their cards. Against them, just calling preflop and either checkraising the flop or just calling down with a big Ace or a small pair feels much better to me. Of course comfort doesn't necessarily equate to correct play.

Any thoughts?

Cartman