Heads up tactic

[nichtgut]

Hi
I started to play heads up more about 3 weeks ago. Before that I was mainly playing 6max and full tables. I've been doing well and had 13 straight "matches" that I won, but last night my first defeat came as I was up against someone I just couldn't beat. I've been thinking a lot about how I should play against this type of player and would like to hear your comments.
How would you play against this player:
If you raise from the button, he will call with almost all hands, at least 90%.
If you limp on the button, he will raise you about 50% of the time, no matter what he's got.
If he's on the button, he raises about 60%, and calls with the rest. He does not fold.
On the flop, he can fold for a CR directly if you called his PF raise.
If he called your raise PF he will often call you down with A or K high and up and will CR you with draws and top pair/second pair on the turn.
If you called his PF raise, he will often take a free card on the turn if you called his flop autobet. He will then often fold the river for a bet if he's got nothing. He varies this play by pretending to take a free card and then raising the river if you bet (even if a blank hits. I tested him by reraising a few times, but he capped every time he made that play).
He does not bluffraise the river, but does often semi-bluffraise the turn. He then of course bets the river no matter if he hits or not.
If he called your raise PF out of position and hits bottom pair, like a 3 he will just check-call you down all the way.
If he gets raised on the flop with top pair no kicker, position doesn't matter, he will often just go into call-down mode (although after a while he started raising the turn in these situations).
He very rarely raises the flop.

What's your plan against a player I just described?

/N G

[naphand]

You will need at least a chapter from a book to answer this. Better posting some example hands along with your description.

To counter his raising your PF limps, start to limp your big hands and 3-bet him, or stop limping and raise all your OTB hands, or limp all your hands. 3-betting big hands is not a strategy you can employ for long without him picking up on it (in which case you can limp/call as well) but you need to test his resolve. It seems from what you say he is mixing up his PF play raises/calls/limps, as you should too (though try not to be random, do it in a way that helps you get a read on him, or hits back). If he is being truly random about his PF raises then you will just have to ignore them and use a strategy that gives him no information pre-flop either, or mixed information.

If he raises 60% PF OTB, and limps the rest, then why not try 3-betting a larger proportion of his limps?

On the flop if he is folding to a CR, then you have one weapon you can use as a bluff and switch around with.

The CR with draws and good hands is a very tricky play to effectively counter, unless you learn to read the board and his PF/flop play for when he is more likely drawing.

If he never bluff raises the River, you can confidently value-bet and fold to such a raise (at least until he adjusts).

Against tricky players the advice is usually to call more, and check more, so bear this in mind. If you are getting caught by CR too often, check/call more and force him to bet his hands and try to read those bets, as well as rope-a-doping him.

You don't mention any adjustments you made to your play (apart from sometimes 3-betting his River CR). You will need to adjust against a tricky and solid type of player. A solid and well-developed HU strategy that works against a lot of players can fall over against a more flexible/variable approach. The ability to adapt, adjust and switch your play around will really test his game, and makes the difference between good and tough opponents. Play too straight/formulaic and you will be read too easily.

HU play is a totally separate skill from 6-max and full-ring and is much more a boxing skills match than the usual slugging punch-ups in 6-max.

[nichtgut]

Hi Naphand
Thank you for your reply, I really appreciate it.
I just have a few comments, hopefully I will learn from your advice.
1. I am adjusting my play by shifting from a more passive approach to a more aggressive approach, and also by being more tight PF and then very loose and then back again. Perhaps that wasn't enough against this guy.
2. As for 3-betting him more when he's raising OTB or raising my button limps, I have been thinking about that, and will try to improve.
3. The CR move on the flop was working quite well, but eventually he adjusted to it.

The biggest mistake I made against him was probably that I played at all after I realized he was good. I did so after like 10 minutes but then I also thought that it would be good to play against a good player and try to learn, I'm trying to think of my heads up sessions as investments to become a better player over all, so I was surprised I did so well from the start until I met this guy.
Anyway, thanks again very much!

/N G

[eL CardinaL]

If your hand is good enough for a call, it is good enough for a raise, never limp in SB vs a good player. Raise or fold.

[Nottom]

[ QUOTE ]
If your hand is good enough for a call, it is good enough for a raise, never limp in SB vs a good player. Raise or fold.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think calling is underrated.

[eL CardinaL]

Well assuming a "normal" opponent if there is such a thing. You got any counter-examples?

[Nottom]

Well I can come up with about a million examples of where calling is correct post-flop, but those are obvious.

As for preflop, it is quite opponent dependant but there are certainly people who it might be better to limp against as part of your play. For example, lets say you are playing an opponent who will never call your PFR he will only fold or 3-bet and he 3-bets your raise around 40% of the time. If you limp, he will only raise his best hands. I don't think always opening for a raise is the best strategy against this player, but I could be wrong.

[naphand]

I think any time people start saying "always" you need to think of times it does not apply.

A lot of experienced HU players talk about raising every hand from the SB, and calling every hand from the BB. We have to give this view some credence simply as that is what a lot of these players say. However, while it may be close to optimal against a very good player, losing any tactical advantage by playing the cards exactly the same way PF, reduces the streets you can outplay your opponent, or chance for deceptive play. The argument could easily be - pre-flop can never be used to define your opponents hand, and so the raise is purely positional. Of course, by raising your opponent always has the odds to call you. You may argue offering 3:1 is better than infinite odds, but it makes zero difference when opponent always has the odds to call, he is not making a mistake.

I see no advantage in raising every hand OTB pre-flop and calling every hand from the BB pre-flop, compared to limp-calling every hand from the SB, and calling every hand from the BB. It gives no additional information, costs the same (if he raises you every time you limp) and no experienced player is going to believe either has the initiative by raising, as PF activity has become meaningless. If you say you need to raise every hand from SB PF, you could equally say limp every hand. This is a simnple argument, and I would be interested to hear explanations as to why one is superior to the other (when playing a good opponent).

Against a less experienced player you can use the PF raises/folds to save on trash cards and for deception/value. I see no reason to adopt the same "always raise" strategy against players of vastly differing ability.

A very clear example of when it is correct to call PF, is when your opponent will raise your limp only with an A or PP, but will not 3-bet your raises. If his raises are giving you information, then it must be preferable to limp, rather than always raise.

[naphand]

This is just my opinion, I am not a great HU player. It is such a tricky area, so opponent dependent, and so full of big-ego's that you are unlikely to ever get an accepted "standard" response. The important thing is to develop a controlled but flexible approach, where you can seamlessly switch from using a tactic to another style or a different holding-requirement (i.e. raise big cards, then pairs, then suiteds etc.). This requires not only a good understading of the value of the cards you hold, but an ability to observe how your opponent reacts and how quickly.

My suspicion is that a lot of HU play tactics are based on the approach used by very aggressive aggro players. You only have to look at the readiness of players to challenge each other to HU "death-matches" to understand the thinking of a lot of players (the fact is, a single 30 or 50 BB "death-match" can never prove who is the better 6-max player, who is correct in any given argument or even who is the better HU player). While this very aggressive approach will work well against inexperienced players, or any player who displays weakness too readily, I have to think a more subtle and tactically superior strategy must exist. Just as with heavyweight boxing a technically superb boxer can humiliate a powerful, dominant champion by simply out-boxing them (think Ali-vs-Foreman, or Holyfield-vs-Tyson, before the ear-biting).

There has been a lot of discussion about pre-flop play for 6-max, and it crops up all the time. There are still differences of opinion, though mostly by degree. HU should be a lot simpler to understand pre-flop wise, certainly it should be easier to explain mathematically, yet there are still varying opinions. Perhaps this is just ignorance, but certainly there has been little in-depth discussion of late (last 6-12 months).

I am disappointed that others (particularly the HULA bunch) have not intiated more discussion on HU play, when posts like this appear. Perhaps we ought to start posting more HU hands. Perhaps they do not want to reveal their tactics to other HULA players, or maybe it is just too situational to really make any explanations meaningful generally.

[nichtgut]

I don't like the approach to always raise OTB. At the site I play the SB is OTB and it's 1/2 of the BB.
Completing sometimes must be a better approach than raising all the time, since even worse players are going to adapt to that tactic and start calling/reraising more.
If you are up against an opponent that calls a lot of raises but likes to check if you just complete even with hands as good as say KT, QJ, completing with almost all trashier hands must be a good play with position.
Besides that, by completing sometimes with AA, KK etc to mix it up adds deception to your play and gives you the opportunity to 3-bet if raised and/or trap players that are aggressive.

/N G