Defending your BB in Limit

[uuDevil]

From the article:

[ QUOTE ]
...when I’m in the big blind, I’m showing an overall loss of less than one big blind with 140 of my 169 hand combinations — meaning that as of now, I do better by calling with those 140 combinations than I would by folding them. To me, this is a pretty strong indicator that all of the people who advocate a loose blind-defending strategy are on the right track.

[/ QUOTE ]

This isn't clear to me. Is he referring only to hands when his BB is raised? Otherwise, this doesn't seem like a good argument at all.

[Net Warrior]

[ QUOTE ]
From the article:

[ QUOTE ]
...when I’m in the big blind, I’m showing an overall loss of less than one big blind with 140 of my 169 hand combinations — meaning that as of now, I do better by calling with those 140 combinations than I would by folding them. To me, this is a pretty strong indicator that all of the people who advocate a loose blind-defending strategy are on the right track.

[/ QUOTE ]

This isn't clear to me. Is he referring only to hands when his BB is raised? Otherwise, this doesn't seem like a good argument at all.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't see what is unclear. The topic is defending the bb. Doesn't this imply that someone put in a raise?

In the latest cardplayer, there's the article you're talking about by Matt Mattros about defending your blind strongly, but then there's another article by Barry Tanenbaum which completely contradicts it. I believe Barry's article to be more appropriate.

[Daniture]

Thats some seriously flawed logic to try and claim you're getting 4.5:1 heads up against a later position raiser.

While i agree in theory the odds are pretty much right to defend with any 2 cards even if you think your opponent has AK it all depends on how much faith you have in your ability to outplay you're opponent out of position.

Personally i'll wait for a better spot then 47o to defend.

[uuDevil]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
From the article:

[ QUOTE ]
...when I’m in the big blind, I’m showing an overall loss of less than one big blind with 140 of my 169 hand combinations — meaning that as of now, I do better by calling with those 140 combinations than I would by folding them. To me, this is a pretty strong indicator that all of the people who advocate a loose blind-defending strategy are on the right track.

[/ QUOTE ]

This isn't clear to me. Is he referring only to hands when his BB is raised? Otherwise, this doesn't seem like a good argument at all.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't see what is unclear. The topic is defending the bb. Doesn't this imply that someone put in a raise?

[/ QUOTE ]

Perhaps it is implied. But I'd prefer he had given more specifics and stated the conditions explicitly. Since Matros has a math background maybe I should just take his claim at face value-- I'd just rather not.

[MicroBob]

"when I’m in the big blind, I’m showing an overall loss of less than one big blind with 140 of my 169 hand combinations"


it very much looks to me that he is looking at his success rate with ANY hands in the big-blind (whether it was raised or not) and then is deciding that he should be defending with all of these hands because the win-rate with them In the BB (period) is somehow favorable for defending.


I haven't read the article...but this logic is REALLY messed-up.


the other way (and I believe incorrect) to look at it is that he actually defended his BB to a raise with all 169 combinations of hands...and believed he did the right thing with 140 of those.
Not only would this be idiotic...but I don't believe it was what he was saying anyway.


He was simply looking at his loss-rate of certain hands IN the BB (even if he saw a free-flop) and THEN came to the conclusion that obviously he should be defending against raises with these hands too.


Based on my interpretation of this along I don't think it's going to be worth my time reading this article.

If a respected poster comes on and says it actually is worth reading then I'll change my mind.

[Arnfinn Madsen]

[ QUOTE ]
"when I’m in the big blind, I’m showing an overall loss of less than one big blind with 140 of my 169 hand combinations"

[/ QUOTE ]

I am not a respected poster, but smart enough to notice that this sentence is pure crap. Take 72o as example. Let's say I decide to fold it 99% of the time, but against that weak-tight button who attempts to steal blinds with 80% of his hands and then play weak-tight postflop, I 3-bet it preflop and it is a +EV-play. Guess what, I am losing less than 1BB on average on than hand from BB [img]/images/graemlins/shocked.gif[/img].

EDIT: It is even stupider. If I click check/fold on every hand from the BB and almost always check/fold postflop, I will end up losing less than 1BB on average since sometimes it will be folded around and sometimes I will flop a monster.

[Net Warrior]

Here's the thinking I find useful:

"Still another great player says he’ll usually defend with anything, even 3-2 offsuit. Good players do this because the pot is laying them 3.5-1 immediately (the raise is two small bets, the small blind and big blind total one and a half small bets, and it costs one small bet to call), and furthermore, the late-position player is going to bet the flop after the big blind checks nearly 100 percent of the time. So, in a way, we’re really getting 4.5-1 to call the raise."

Looking at it this was it's easy to see the pot odds and which hands are worth defending. I don't think 32o qualifies but 97s which I would have folded in the past seems playable to me now for example.

[MicroBob]

[ QUOTE ]
If I click check/fold on every hand from the BB and almost always check/fold postflop, I will end up losing less than 1BB on average since sometimes it will be folded around and sometimes I will flop a monster.

[/ QUOTE ]


precisely....I just don't see what using 1BB as a cut-off accomplishes.


I agree that fairly loose defending (particularly against late-position steal raisers as well as in multi-way pots for just one more bet) is +EV. But this really isn't news, is it?

I guess I'll actually have to read the article in order to actually address its point/s.

[I am fish]

[ QUOTE ]
precisely....I just don't see what using 1BB as a cut-off accomplishes.


I agree that fairly loose defending (particularly against late-position steal raisers as well as in multi-way pots for just one more bet) is +EV. But this really isn't news, is it?

I guess I'll actually have to read the article in order to actually address its point/s.

[/ QUOTE ]

Just to clarify, he says less than a big blind, not a big bet. The point that Matt is making is that he has a better expectation defending against a steal raise rather than folding.

In the article he talks about defending with about any two cards (like 74o) especially against a steal raise from the button by a typical player and where the small blind has folded.

I think most players don't defend that loose, and the article is simply emphasizing that you are losing some EV by not defending loosely and that many players would gain if they just loosened up.