sb vs. bb when you are sb

[Smasharoo 0]

In a 1-2 blind structure, HU against a BB who's stats are, say, 60/2/0.8, I'd complete/fold with a hand like 86o (43% equity against a random hand, 29% against AA-99, AK-AJ, KQ).So you'd fold getting 3 to 1 on the call because you think your opponent will fold, say, AA when you the flop is 66J thus negating your implied odds?Or because you don't understand implied odds at all?let me know.good luck.

[Actuary 3]

I knew we were missing something!

[MrNiceGuy 0]

In a 1-2 blind structure, HU against a BB who's stats are, say, 60/2/0.8, I'd complete/fold with a hand like 86o (43% equity against a random hand, 29% against AA-99, AK-AJ, KQ).So you'd fold getting 3 to 1 on the call because you think your opponent will fold, say, AA when you the flop is 66J thus negating your implied odds?Or because you don't understand implied odds at all?let me know.good luck.

Chances that I outflop a big pair with 86o = 4.5% = 1/22.5Amount I gain (vs. folding PF) if I outflop a big pair, we cap every street, and he misses any redraws: 23 SBs, minus the rake.Implied odds don't justify calling here, IMO.Increased fold equity postflop may justify open-raising rather than open-completing. The chance to increase action when I open with a big pair may justify open-raising instead of completing as well.But I believe, if you open-complete, then folding to a raise from a passive opponent would be correct.

[Abbaddabba 0]

I think if he's as passive post flop as he is preflop, you could still justify calling.

[Smasharoo 0]

But I believe, if you open-complete, then folding to a raise from a passive opponent would be correct.You'd be wrong. Not close. good luck.

[Steppin Razor 0]

There is no reason to ever just call in the SB if you're opening. Making the pot bigger by 1 small bet isn't going to make the pot 'juicy'. Nor, since you only have one opponent, is it ever going to build a pot that gives odds to any kind of draw.Why would anyone in this situation even care about hitting the flop? Chances are neither of you will. The person who wins will be the person who says, 'that's my pot, you better have a hand.'Force him to hit the flop or fold.If anyone ever open limps from the SB against my BB, I'm raising PF. I'm betting the flop if checked to. I'm raising if bet into. With any two cards.

[MrNiceGuy 0]

But I believe, if you open-complete, then folding to a raise from a passive opponent would be correct.You'd be wrong.  Not close.  good luck.

If a passive player opens preflop, and it's folded to you in the BB, do you almost always defend?

[jayboogie 0]

Complete folding is just plain stupid. Got to be the dumbest concept ever, I'd want somebody to shoot me dead if I ever did it. You get 3:1 if your raised and well unless he flips over Aces or an Overpair to your offsuit rags, you'd better be sure I'm calling a raise after completing.For those that say you shouldn't complete, I would disagree, there's a time for completing and a time for raising. This is dictated by the table conditions. You'll usually never see me folding a hand as good as 67 offsuit in the sb against a typical opponent. I might raise with it sometimes, I might limp with it others, both are ok as long as your mixing up what hands your limping/raising with.

[jayboogie 0]

Also I should note, blind play is what seperates the middle/higher limits from low limits. If you're going to move up higher, you better learn to play from the blinds and learn to play a wide assortment of hands in the blinds. You'll need to do your share of stealing and defending if your going to be successful, otherwise you're going to get run over.

[CoranMoran 0]

There is no reason to ever just call in the SB if you're opening

As in all poker situations, it is important to continuously mix up your game. Always playing the same way in the same situation is foolish.In these situations, the reason why most players prefer to raise from the SB is due to the fold equity involved.Without this chance of the BB folding, the play is poor.You would simply be buiding a pot in which you are out of position. But it should be obvious, that if we open-raise every time from the sb, the bb will learn to call with any holding.Thus our fold equity is gone.And the play becomes unprofitable.Mix it up.Don't be predictable.--cnm

[Steppin Razor 0]

The mix up your play caveat is a given for every poker situation. However, the vast majority of the time, if I'm not going to fold, I'm going to raise. Sure, I might get the BB to call more loosely (which is fine with me), but I still force him to hit hands moreso than if I just complete.

[pokerplayer24 0]

There is no reason to ever just call in the SB if you're opening. Making the pot bigger by 1 small bet isn't going to make the pot 'juicy'. Nor, since you only have one opponent, is it ever going to build a pot that gives odds to any kind of draw.Why would anyone in this situation even care about hitting the flop? Chances are neither of you will. The person who wins will be the person who says, 'that's my pot, you better have a hand.'Force him to hit the flop or fold.If anyone ever open limps from the SB against my BB, I'm raising PF. I'm betting the flop if checked to. I'm raising if bet into. With any two cards.

If I have AA or KK its quite possible i'm cold calling preflop. Or if I have a mediocre hand like 109 or 89 vs a loose passive player.

[Smasharoo 0]

If a passive player opens preflop, and it's folded to you in the BB, do you almost always defend?Yes.In fact, if it's heads up I almost allways defend, period. There are situations where I'll fold, but it's more because the game is good and I'd rather just move on to the next hand. There are some hands that can be tough to play against a passive player's raise that I might muck for the same reason. A7o for instance. Fold 82o heads up, though? Never.good luck.

[Verdimme 0]

If a passive player opens preflop, and it's folded to you in the BB, do you almost always defend?Yes.In fact, if it's heads up I almost allways defend, period. There are situations where I'll fold, but it's more because the game is good and I'd rather just move on to the next hand. There are some hands that can be tough to play against a passive player's raise that I might muck for the same reason. A7o for instance. Fold 82o heads up, though? Never.good luck.

Hi, can you elaborate on why you will defend?

[CoranMoran 0]

If one makes a habit of complete-folding, he is certainly going to lose money in the long run.But this fact alone does not mean that the fold is necessarily wrong in certain situations.

Complete folding is just plain stupid. Got to be the dumbest concept ever, I'd want somebody to shoot me dead if I ever did it. You get 3:1 if your raised and well unless he flips over Aces or an Overpair to your offsuit rags, you'd better be sure I'm calling a raise after completing.  

The idea that you should call a preflop raise out of position with any holding because of 3-1 odds seems a bit off.If this were true, then one should defend his BB to any raise in a full ring game. And we all agree that this would not be profitable in the long run.

Also, if BB is a passive player, it may be correct to limp and then fold certain hands if he raises

I play this situation the same as I would if I were in the BB against a tight UTG raiser.I already have a bet invested (my blind).So if I hold garbage, I will likely toss the hand away.What must be realized is that once we complete from the SB, that money is no longer ours. The fact that we put money into the pot is a sunk cost and should not affect our future decisions.But many players, once they have limped in from the SB and get raised by the BB, run into a wall called pride.Folding at this point seems soft, so they will call the raise regardless of their holdings.In actuality, the error may occur with the fact that we completed from the SB in the first place.But in the example that was given, our opponent in the BB was very passive and we were almost certainly going to see the flop without further cost.Conclusion:In the occasional situation in which you are up against a very loose-passive Big Blind, it may be correct to limp in with poor cards.And it may also be acceptable to then fold to an unusual show of strength from this same passive opponent.Having said that, your read on your opponent better be accurate, or you're throwing money away.And complete-folding on more than the rare occasion shows weakness and will give the rest of your opponents at the table incentive to try to push you around.--cnm

[Steppin Razor 0]

I don't understand the fear of loose passive players. Loose players call with trash. Make them pay for it. If your hand is really poor, fold it don't limp it. Like CoranMoran said, the error is completing.As for AA or KK, maybe once in a while smooth call, but you don't win money by not betting. All you do is give chances for ragged two pairs, or longshots to take free shots.

[Abbaddabba 0]

The reason he's advocating defending the blind against them with virtually anything is because how predictable they'll be post flop.If you fold every time you're behind and get in lots of bets every time you're ahead, it's quite easy to play.If the guy is passive preflop but plays well post flop, i dont think a complete/fold is out of the question.Who knows though? It might not even be close. :!:

[CoranMoran 0]

If your hand is really poor, fold it don't limp it.

The raise-or-fold strategy is certainly a quality idea that would avoid the awkwardness of this situation completely.But there are certain BB opponents that give the idea of limping from the SB some appeal.These opponents have the following characteristics:- They will always call a raise from the SB when in the BB.- They will call you down postflop with very marginal hands.- They will only bet/raise with monsters (preflop and post flop).- They are predictable and obvious.When in a hand with these opponents, the following important facts hold true:- I will get several free cards because these opponents will rarely show aggression.- When I hit my hand, I will get paid off several bets.The culmination of these facts gives me the following ideas:- Bluffing is a bad idea because I will usually be called down; thus my fold equity is nominal. (This includes a preflop raise when I don't have a strong hand.)- I am likely to see a cheap flop by limping.- I reap the rewards of implied odds if I hit my hand, and lose little if I miss because I only am investing the minimum to see most of the cards.Under those circumstances, I would prefer to limp with my T9o and see a cheap flop.If the flop comes down AT2, I can comfortably lead out and easily be called down by a lesser hand.However, if after I limped with my T9o, my predictable opponent put in an uncharacteristic preflop raise, I am no longer in the comfortable spot I was in the previous example.If I call this raise, and the flop is the same AT2, I no longer am able to lead with my middle pair and win some easy bets.Because remember, even if this opponent does not have an Ace, he will call me down with his QQ.Thus seeing this flop when I knew I was behind preflop doesn't have much value any more.These types of players are certainly the minority, but they are out there.I identify them when they are to my left, and use the open-limp from the SB on these occasions.--cnm

[MrNiceGuy 0]

If a passive player opens preflop, and it's folded to you in the BB, do you almost always defend?Yes.In fact, if it's heads up I almost allways defend, period. There are situations where I'll fold, but it's more because the game is good and I'd rather just move on to the next hand. There are some hands that can be tough to play against a passive player's raise that I might muck for the same reason. A7o for instance. Fold 82o heads up, though? Never.good luck.

Ok, I see where you're coming from - this makes sense. Thanks.

[Steppin Razor 0]

I definitely can't fault your reasoning, but I come to a different conclusion.

The raise-or-fold strategy is certainly a quality idea that would avoid the awkwardness of this situation completely.But there are certain BB opponents that give the idea of limping from the SB some appeal.These opponents have the following characteristics:- They will always call a raise from the SB when in the BB.- They will call you down postflop with very marginal hands.- They will only bet/raise with monsters (preflop and post flop).- They are predictable and obvious.When in a hand with these opponents, the following important facts hold true:- I will get several free cards because these opponents will rarely show aggression.- When I hit my hand, I will get paid off several bets.

- Always call my raise PF? Fine by me. More money for me when I win. More money for me when I get him to fold the flop. More money for him when he hits. That's ok, I've got two chances to win the pot to his one.- Post flop strategy depends on player style and reads. Even someone who calls marginal hands will occasionally fold when he has nothing. If he doesn't fold, I'll evaluate my high card strength v. what I think he's got and what comes on the board.- If I know for a fact he will only bet or raise with monsters, he can have my one small bet. How often is he going to have a monster?- I like playing against predictable and obvious players. It makes it easy for me to win a lot and lose a little.- I can get free cards by being the aggressor, representing a big hand PF. I can check when I want to and take a free card too.- When I hit my hand, I will get paid off several bets. +1 small bet

The culmination of these facts gives me the following ideas:- Bluffing is a bad idea because I will usually be called down; thus my fold equity is nominal. (This includes a preflop raise when I don't have a strong hand.)- I am likely to see a cheap flop by limping.- I reap the rewards of implied odds if I hit my hand, and lose little if I miss because I only am investing the minimum to see most of the cards.

- Keeping up with a bluff is a bad idea. But, my high card may be best. I may have options beyond just hitting a pair, and again, since he likely has nothing I can take it from him. Here, I'm evaluating the board, my reads and my cards.- I reap the rewards of implied odds too if I hit my hand. I may lose one extra small bet once in a while, but my aggression could scare him into not betting or raising his better hand. I get to max out my money earned against him, but he may save me bets by being too afraid to pull the trigger.

Under those circumstances, I would prefer to limp with my T9o and see a cheap flop.If the flop comes down AT2, I can comfortably lead out and easily be called down by a less hand.

If I hit my hand, I can comfortably lead out middle pair no matter what. Again, chances are he missed. If he did, he paying to draw to at best six outs. He might have hit a lesser hand. And, he might not raise me with an Ace - I save a bet.

However, if after I limped with my T9o, my predictable opponent put in an uncharacteristic preflop raise, I am no longer in the comfortable spot I was in the previous example.If I call this raise, and the flop is the same AT2, I no longer am able to lead with my middle pair and win some easy bets.Because remember, even if this opponent does not have an Ace, he will call me down with his QQ.Thus seeing this flop when I knew I was behind preflop doesn't have much value any more.

If a predictable player only raises with a monster 3 bets me PF, then I'll fit or fold.If I can get a hand like QQ to never raise me, I'll take the cheap cards to beat him.

[Abbaddabba 0]

- Always call my raise PF? Fine by me. More money for me when I win. More money for me when I get him to fold the flop. More money for him when he hits. That's ok, I've got two chances to win the pot to his one.

If you're banking on a calling station to fold a winner against you, i think you should re evaluate your strategy.It might happen on occasion, but it's rarely profitable.

[Canada 0]

If a passive player opens preflop, and it's folded to you in the BB, do you almost always defend?Yes.In fact, if it's heads up I almost allways defend, period. There are situations where I'll fold, but it's more because the game is good and I'd rather just move on to the next hand. There are some hands that can be tough to play against a passive player's raise that I might muck for the same reason. A7o for instance. Fold 82o heads up, though? Never.good luck.

Hi, can you elaborate on why you will defend?

1) If your good postflop, its +EV2) The more skilled your opponents the more significant this becomes in your game. High stakes/quality games are often heads up battles for the blinds. You need to be competent defending to move up and survive

[Steppin Razor 0]

- Always call my raise PF? Fine by me. More money for me when I win. More money for me when I get him to fold the flop. More money for him when he hits. That's ok, I've got two chances to win the pot to his one.

If you're banking on a calling station to fold a winner against you, i think you should re evaluate your strategy.It might happen on occasion, but it's rarely profitable.

Keep in mind we're just talking about open raising from the SB, not post flop strategy.I'm not banking on a calling station folding a winner. I'm banking on him folding PF, folding when he misses, calling instead of raising when he's winning, and paying me off +1 when I make my hand.

[wrto4556 0]

If a passive player opens preflop, and it's folded to you in the BB, do you almost always defend?Yes.In fact, if it's heads up I almost allways defend, period.  There are situations where I'll fold, but it's more because the game is good and I'd rather just move on to the next hand.  There are some hands that can be tough to play against a passive player's raise that I might muck for the same reason.  A7o for instance.  Fold 82o heads up, though?  Never.good luck.

does anyone even put people on a range of hands anymore?

[allinbluff35 0]

does anyone even put people on a range of hands anymore?

what would be the point, they can have anything!!!