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!

[Johnnyj580]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The button checks and raises

[/ QUOTE ]

FLOOR!

[/ QUOTE ]


LOL . . .NH sir

[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.

[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

[Tommy Angelo]

"Wouldn't [taking the initiative] help negate your positional disadvantage?"

Help is not enough. Nothing can undo positional disadvantage. Checkraising can't. Taking the initiative can't. That's because positional disadvantage is just there. It doesn't change. And someone always has it. When I choose to play POOP (passively out of position), I'm merely conceding to the other guy exactly what he has coming, positionally, and nothing more.

[Lestat]

[ QUOTE ]
"Wouldn't [taking the initiative] help negate your positional disadvantage?"

Help is not enough. Nothing can undo positional disadvantage. Checkraising can't. Taking the initiative can't. That's because positional disadvantage is just there. It doesn't change. And someone always has it. When I choose to play POOP (passively out of position), I'm merely conceding to the other guy exactly what he has coming, positionally, and nothing more.





[/ QUOTE ]

All true. But I hope you'll agree that there are many ways to reduce or even offset positional disadvantage against inferior players.

[Dazarath]

Isn't the free card play related to the idea of taking the initiative? If opponents completely ignore the idea of the last aggressor on the previous streets (ie. people who donk bet hands they like, regardless of the previous action), then the free card play becomes useless. But as it stands, it is a useful play in certain situations, and I believe that this is because when we make this play, we are trying to represent a hand range better than the hands of our opponents. (It's also taking advantage of the fact that just about everyone loves to checkraise.) So yes, you could say that this is taking advantage of our opponent's bad play. But so is all of poker.