Matt Matros vs. Sklansky on Heads up Limit

[JDalla]

From Sklansky's Hold'Em Poker for Advanced Players:
"...in a heads up match in the big blind... you should play against an aggressive opponent... Any pair, any ace, any two cards both nine or higher, any other straight flush combination with no gaps or just one gap (except 42s and 32s), any king little suited... and perhaps a few others such as J8s, 98, or 97.

From Matt Matros's The Making of a Poker Player:
"In Limit Hold'em... any two cards are playable from the button because you are always in position against just one random hand... The world's leading poker authority would have a hard time convincing me that even two-three offsuit is unprofitable getting 3 to 1 immediate pot odds in position against a random hand."


Now I realize that Sklansky is refering to the Big Blind and Matros the Little Blind, but it seems the approaches are vastly different.

Thoughts?

[Noodles]

[ QUOTE ]
The world's leading poker authority would have a hard time convincing me that even two-three offsuit is unprofitable getting 3 to 1 immediate pot odds in position against a random hand."


[/ QUOTE ]
yea makes sense but dont you have to factor in the chance of being raised?

[bottomset]

must be Matro's is talking about HU games where the BB is the button, thats the only way you get 3-1 in position

Skylanksy is talking about ones with a SB button

[JDalla]

Matros is talking about the same kind of game as Sklansky- I just checked it out.

Is Matros nuts or is Sklansky too tight?

[donger]

[ QUOTE ]
Matros is talking about the same kind of game as Sklansky- I just checked it out.

Is Matros nuts or is Sklansky too tight?

[/ QUOTE ]

Sklansky's range of hands is what he would defend his BB with, either by calling or three-betting. Matros is talking about being willing to complete the SB with any hand. These are totally different.

[Noodles]

Sklansky is talking about defending the BB against an agressive SB raiser,
other dude is on about just calling in the sb HU what from i can gather,

[donger]

[ QUOTE ]
must be Matro's is talking about HU games where the BB is the button, thats the only way you get 3-1 in position

Skylanksy is talking about ones with a SB button

[/ QUOTE ]

Huh? BB is one bet, SB is 1/2 bet. 1.5 bets in the pot : 0.5 bets to call = 3:1

[JDalla]

Ok, I see the difference... however what do people think about completing the bet with 23o? I think this is an awful play, as much of the time the Big Blind will raise anyway...?

[TStoneMBD]

there is so much confliction with heads up play on these forums. there has been very little literature geared towards heads up play. as a result, there is very little conformity in the opinions of players as correct strategy.

will i complete a bet with 23o in position on the SB? almost never. but, if i am up against a player far worse than me and i forsee a huge exploitable leak in his game that can be exploited even with 23o, i will play it.

ive lately adopted a strategy from the SB, in position, in which i never complete, but always raise/fold. this is unless of course my opponent has an exploitable leak which can be best exploited by completing. from the BB i will only raise more selective hands. the reasoning for this is that the player on the button has implied odds while the player in the bb has reverse implied odds, over the long run of course. by inflating the pot, you should naturally be increasing your implied odds because the pot will now be fought for more often because of its size, which means more turns and rivers will be seen, along with more showdowns than if the pot was not inflated to begin with. the more streets there are to bet with, the more implied odds the player who has position will have.

[jacksup]

Since I wrote the book, I've backed off on this position a little bit. I will now fold maybe the worst 5-10 percent of hands on the button against a competent opponent. Against someone who plays badly after the flop, I'm still likely to play anything.

Best,
Matt