High-stakes tag team

[pufferfish]

Just finished reading "The Theory of Poker". Wow!

Somehow that got me to wondering which of the following strategies would work the best or hurt the least. [img]/forums/images/icons/wink.gif[/img]

Two players get to play the same hand at a high stakes limit Hold'em table. The table is loose, aggressive.
Please note that when they play, they play alone (they do not consult).

The players are Novice (6 months of experience), and Expert (an expert at that game).

Strategy 1:
Novice plays pre-flop.
Expert on the flop.
Novice on the turn.
Expert on the river.

Strategy 2:
Expert plays pre-flop.
Novice on the flop.
Expert on the turn.
Novice on the river.

If you had a stake in this team, which strategy do you think would result in the best chance to have a winning session, or to suffer the smallest loss?

Any comments would be appreciated.

[deadbart]

Interesting question, and one that shows you are benefiting from your studies.

After 6 months, the novice should be pretty good at playing preflop, given the loose aggressive game that you stipulate. So I would go with first option, even though it also leaves the novice playing the turn, which is arguably the most important and difficult street. So I think that which strategy to use is a very close decision. It mostly depends on exactly which type of mistakes the novice makes, of course.

[Poker blog]

Absolutely I'd say strategy 2. imho, pre-flop and turn play are by far the most important.

[soda]

The novice, after 6 months will probably have a good handle on preflop play. Also, I would want the expert playing on the flop. Flop play is crucial in my mind, with the turn being second and then the river. Preflop is most important, but also easier to learn with so few variables.

I vote to have the novice play preflop. Interesting question though. I find it hard not to argue for having the expert play preflop. I'm sure it's very close and depends on the novice's main weaknesses/strengths.

soda

[David Ottosen]

I'd have the novice playing flop and river.

Novices play too many hands, and this is something even an expert can't deal with. The expert will weed this right out (likely tightening up even more than usual to give the novice easier decisions on the flop).

The novice can then be counted on not to cause too much damage on the flop; he will be most likely to either have top pair or overcards, and if he does anything, it will likely be a one bet error (ie, he will not raise enough, or he will make a weak overcard call).

In the event that the novice does come in on the flop with weakness, the expert can then deal with the problem before the bets double by judging accurately the strength of the hand.

On the river, the novices mistakes are likely only to be of the "don't win enough" type. He's unlikely to fold many winners, which would be the catastrophe.

But the main reason to go Expert-Novice-Expert-Novice is that the novice will be making the fewest possible decisions (since he will only be granted the right to make a decision after the expert determines that the hand is easy enough for the novice to play).

[Ulysses]

Strategy 2. (Expert plays pre-flop and turn)

[Rick Nebiolo]

.

[deadbart]

You bring up a lot of really good points. I may have to switch my vote. Certainly the fact that preflop decisions are an order of magnitude more common than other decisions leans towards putting the expert in control of that street.

That said, I think a lot of the differences in our thinking come from our interpretations of what constitutes a novice. I was assuming from the question that the novice would be a serious novice. I honestly do believe that after 6 months one can easily learn and stick to a fairly solid selection of starting hands, especially suitable for a loose aggressive game. So if we assume that the novice can do this, it becomes much less important to have the expert play preflop. The expert will find a few more times to isolate, steal with a slightly better mix of hands, but mostly preflop play can be pretty uncreative. And I think creativity is one of the marks of an expert.

Similarly, I think one of the mistakes that novices do make a lot is folding on the end too much, or in the wrong situations at least. Expert play helps avoid the most costly mistake of all, folding the winning hand when the pot is at it's biggest.

[David Ottosen]

Even if we assume the novice has a solid starting hand selection, he's going to be making the two most important decisions in the hand: 1) to play it or not play it, and 2) what to do when the bet size doubles. Keep in mind that many of the expert's flop play decisions will be based on raising to set up multi street semi-bluffs/bluffs, which the novice may not be able to capitalize on.

The novice river mistakes are generally made as a result of getting to the river incorrectly or playing passively and leading other players to bet into them on the river. The expert's play should be able to counteract this, by means of correct turn play (raises to enable river checkdowns, or folds of hands that shouldn't have called the turn but now should call the river).

But the main point to me is to have the expert making the maximum number of decisions possible. In the end, to me the question is: you have a choice of having an expert and a novice split decisions. You can have the expert play 75% and the novice play 25% (and I think this is probably the ratio between total preflop+turn decisions vs flop+river decisions), or you can have the expert play 25% and the novice play 75% (this may be higher if the novice is playing looser).

[brad]

i was thinking if the expert plays the flop he can stay away from marginal trouble hands.

but i was assuming the novice could have a solid preflop, which i dont think is too hard to do.

so if preflop is just solid automaton style, then expert is 'playing' twice as much.