Quick Theory Q re completing the small blind

Hitchhiker's Guide to...

Just a quick theory question about completing the small blind:

- you are on the small blind
- you have a healthy stack that isn't in danger of being blinded away in the near future
- a few people before you have paid the blind
- you don't think the big blind will raise

The question is:

Should you always complete the small blind, no matter how bad your cards are? Why?

Ste05

I would, because you're getting lovely odds.

Iago

even if nobody has paid the blind you should call the BB. You're getting 3:1 on your additional investment.

White Knight

fold reluctantly saying "I think i have you beat but ... "

completed last night in fitz double chance with 7 2 and flopped full house. read into it what you may!

padser

Iago wrote:

even if nobody has paid the blind you should call the BB. You're getting 3:1 on your additional investment.

But your out of position. Which means its not realistic to put it as 3:1. Say something like 2 7o the odds against two random cards are about 30% i think. So if you are only getting 2:1 which i think is more realistic if u factor in the chance of a raise, plus the fact ur out of position, means u should fold. But only barely!

ollyk1

Factor in the implied odds for that poorly played limping monkey with his QQ in utg +1 and that beautiful low raggy flop, and how he'll cry all the way home to his Mammy when he is sent out of the tournament by 52o - worth calling even a min raise with for the joy of it!!

De Deraco

provided the BB isn't a maniac always call from the sb.
thats all you play for olly you outdrawing sadist.

bmc

padser wrote:

But your out of position. Which means its not realistic to put it as 3:1. Say something like 2 7o the odds against two random cards are about 30% i think. So if you are only getting 2:1 which i think is more realistic if u factor in the chance of a raise, plus the fact ur out of position, means u should fold. But only barely!

This is a good point.

Also...

You can look at the odds of 27o against AQo and realise that you're never that far behind, but that said, when the flop comes it can be tricky to know that you're ahead with your pair of 2s on a 2TK flop. So the real question is, how often will your 2,7o hit hard enough that you know you can play on with it.

Gholimoli

The answer is no you shouldn’t always complete, and if you do your making –EV moves in the long run.
Don’t be fooled my the false impression that your getting the correct odds to call with any two cards.
Some one said, even if its just you and BB then you should even complete with 72o because of the 3:1 odds your getting and your not that much of an underdog against AQ even !
Those odds are the odds of one hand against another hand, when the hand is played to the river. This is a very important fact that people know but seem to forget.
When you complete with 72 you’re hardly going to play the hand to the river.
The fact that there are more players in the hand shouldn’t really effect your decision that much(it does how ever matter to an extent) .again I use the 72 example and suppose you have a UTG limper ,another early position limper ,a mid position limper and you know the BB is going to call. Is it right to call with 72?
Absolutely not.
Why?
Because in the long run this will loose you money?
How? Well im going to assume that you will only be willing to continue on with your hand after the flop, with two pair or stronger.
Hands like 77x,72x,22x,772 etc.
Ok the problem here is your not going to flop those hands nearly enough to have the correct immediate odds of calling.
What about out implied odds you ask?
Well how much do you think your going to get paid from the UTG or others with a board of 772?

Culchie

Gholimoli wrote:

The answer is no you shouldn’t always complete, and if you do your making –EV moves in the long run.
Don’t be fooled my the false impression that your getting the correct odds to call with any two cards.
Some one said, even if its just you and BB then you should even complete with 72o because of the 3:1 odds your getting and your not that much of an underdog against AQ even !
Those odds are the odds of one hand against another hand, when the hand is played to the river. This is a very important fact that people know but seem to forget.
When you complete with 72 you’re hardly going to play the hand to the river.
The fact that there are more players in the hand shouldn’t really effect your decision that much(it does how ever matter to an extent) .again I use the 72 example and suppose you have a UTG limper ,another early position limper ,a mid position limper and you know the BB is going to call. Is it right to call with 72?
Absolutely not.
Why?
Because in the long run this will loose you money?
How? Well im going to assume that you will only be willing to continue on with your hand after the flop, with two pair or stronger.
Hands like 77x,72x,22x,772 etc.
Ok the problem here is your not going to flop those hands nearly enough to have the correct immediate odds of calling.
What about out implied odds you ask?
Well how much do you think your going to get paid from the UTG or others with a board of 772?

You haven't factored in bluffing. You don't need 7 2 to fall on the flop to dictate whether you are playing the hand or not.
In fact if it does fall, chances are that you will be marked down as having a 'big blind special' and get feck all action anyway.
The answer as always is "it depends".
If you're at a table of weak passive players, and there are 6 limpers, I'm going to make up the blind, .... hell I might even raise and thin the field out a wee bit. Raising with absolute muck can help define the rest of the villans hands.

Especially if the blinds are big, and I have a decent stack...I'm not letting all that money waft under my nose without some sort of cunning plan.

If the flop is one that I feel is raggedy and has missed all the Ace Rag merchants, I'll might play it like I have TPTK or something.

Bluffs are far more believable if you start earlier in the hand, rather than pretending you just hit your miracle card.
I'm making up the small blind just about 90% of the time I reckon, sometimes I have a hand, sometimes I don't.

I do realise I've probably come across as some sick bluffing maniac.:p

It's all true.:D

Gholimoli

Culchie wrote:

You haven't factored in bluffing. You don't need 7 2 to fall on the flop to dictate whether you are playing the hand or not.
In fact if it does fall, chances are that you will be marked down as having a 'big blind special' and get feck all action anyway.
The answer as always is "it depends".
If you're at a table of weak passive players, and there are 6 limpers, I'm going to make up the blind, .... hell I might even raise and thin the field out a wee bit. Raising with absolute muck can help define the rest of the villans hands.

Especially if the blinds are big, and I have a decent stack...I'm not letting all that money waft under my nose without some sort of cunning plan.

If the flop is one that I feel is raggedy and has missed all the Ace Rag merchants, I'll might play it like I have TPTK or something.

Bluffs are far more believable if you start earlier in the hand, rather than pretending you just hit your miracle card.
I'm making up the small blind just about 90% of the time I reckon, sometimes I have a hand, sometimes I don't.

I do realise I've probably come across as some sick bluffing maniac.:p

It's all true.:D

Culchi
This was a theoretical question and the I think the OP question was based on the odds on offer is it correct to complete all the time.
Now based on odds alone I can confidently say that completing 90% of blinds is not good practice.
Obviously everything is situation dependent and if the situation calls for it you can even raise with 72 and the likes but if some one asks you a theoretical question is it right to raise with 72o from SB, what are you going to reply?
As for bluffing again, its theoretically wrong to bluff in to so many opponents as the possibility of one of your opponents hitting the flop is greater as the number of opponent grows. That doesn’t mean you should never do it, it means doing it would require special circumstances.
What you’re referring to is how to play against weak passive players but your hardly going to find your self in that situation 90% of times.

fuzzbox

Gholimoli wrote:

Culchi
This was a theoretical question and the I think the OP question was based on the odds on offer is it correct to complete all the time.
Now based on odds alone I can confidently say that completing 90% of blinds is not good practice.
Obviously everything is situation dependent and if the situation calls for it you can even raise with 72 and the likes but if some one asks you a theoretical question is it right to raise with 72o from SB, what are you going to reply?
As for bluffing again, its theoretically wrong to bluff in to so many opponents as the possibility of one of your opponents hitting the flop is greater as the number of opponent grows. That doesn’t mean you should never do it, it means doing it would require special circumstances.
What you’re referring to is how to play against weak passive players but your hardly going to find your self in that situation 90% of times.

This is not how you should play against weak-passive players.

califano

Shur its not often we get the chance to complete anyway because of raised pots so 90% isnt as frequent as it seems.

Drakar

I know a number of good players have mentioned that they just break even completing the sb (looking at their pokertracker stats).

Culchie

Drakar wrote:

I know a number of good players have mentioned that they just break even completing the sb (looking at their pokertracker stats).

Agreed...one of the reasons why sometimes it's best just not to make up the small blind, but come out fighting, when the blinds are worth winning especially.
BTW, I'm talking Tourneys not cash games.

Drakar

It would be interesting to see some stats on that. I often raise in the sb if no one is in the pot for just that reason. However it must be seen as an attempt to steal quite often.

Culchie

We're going further down the road of 'absolutes' now.

I was just trying to point out that there are other options to just folding to the small blind with a weak hand.

"It depends" is the bottom line

Ste05

Gholimoli wrote:

Now based on odds alone I can confidently say that completing 90% of blinds is not good practice.

Agreed, it should be 100% of the time. :cool: :eek: Even if there's only 2 limpers, you are getting 7:1 Pot odds and savage implied odds. I'm calling here 100% of the time.

But it depends...

Gholimoli

Ste05 wrote:

Agreed, it should be 100% of the time. :cool: :eek: Even if there's only 2 limpers, you are getting 7:1 Pot odds and savage implied odds. I'm calling here 100% of the time.

But it depends...

That will loose money over the long run guaranteed no matter how good you are.
And you don’t have savage implied odds at all.
What do you call implied odds?
The fact that you’re deep and your opponents are deep?
That doesn’t matter! The only reason why would consider stack sizes when talking about implied odds is to make sure that you and your opponent have enough chips for you to get paid when you hit your hand .as I said in the earlier post .if you hit your full house on the flop with 24o or 72o or 92o etc your not going to get paid nearly enough to make up for all those times that you have to fold out hand after flop with these hands.
I agree that you should call with a much wider range but the question was “should you always no matter what cards…” and the answer is a definite no .
Can you tell me how you figured you have savage implied odds to call with any hand?

fuzzbox

Ste05 wrote:

Agreed, it should be 100% of the time. :cool: :eek: Even if there's only 2 limpers, you are getting 7:1 Pot odds and savage implied odds. I'm calling here 100% of the time.

But it depends...

If you are calling with a bag of rubbish in a limped pot, you are more likely to be getting savage REVERSE implied odds.

Consider the case where you have the dreaded 72o, and you complete. And the board comes down 774. If you are played with (by a good player) then how do you like your hand?

califano

fuzzbox wrote:

If you are played with (by a good player) then how do you like your hand?

Id like it every bit as much, whats (by a good player) got to do with it.

Waylander

I agree with Ste, if you are getting 7-1 from small blind you have to call, and I am satisfied that my poker tracker stats back me up here. Yes, you need to hit a strong flop, but you can clean up if you do, if you do not, you fold to any bet on the flop, if you are any way decent post flop this is a winnig tactic in the long run. I am surprised there are people who disagree with this.

Culchie

fuzzbox wrote:

If you are calling with a bag of rubbish in a limped pot, you are more likely to be getting savage REVERSE implied odds.

Consider the case where you have the dreaded 72o, and you complete. And the board comes down 774. If you are played with (by a good player) then how do you like your hand?

That's like saying how do I like my Aces, if two kings fall on the flop.

You have to be able to interpret opponents, flop textures, stack sizes etc etc...

Know when to hold em, know when to fold em etc....

I'd often call a raise from a tight player with Q 8 (for example) who you would actually be 90% sure he has Kings or Aces preflop, if there were enough limpers in it to make the odds attractive, and he had a large stack behind him.

Why? ... Because that particular player will not drop that hand, and you can clean him out with a favourable flop.

I agree that when giving advice to new and inexperienced players, there's a case for folding small blinds when you have muck, so that they stay out of trouble they walk blindly into.

However, moving on from that, if I'm getting 7/1 to make up a SB, I'm taking it with any 2 cards, might even raise if my second hand on my watch is in the second quarter.

jacQues

White Knight wrote:

fold reluctantly saying "I think i have you beat but ... "

completed last night in fitz double chance with 7 2 and flopped full house. read into it what you may!

That's soooo different!

The hammer usually wins!!

jacQues

fuzzbox

rounders123 wrote:

Id like it every bit as much, whats (by a good player) got to do with it.

Because if you are played with by a good player on this flop, in a limped pot, then you are likely to be drawing to 3 outs.

fuzzbox

Culchie wrote:

That's like saying how do I like my Aces, if two kings fall on the flop.

Its nothing of the sort.

You have to be able to interpret opponents, flop textures, stack sizes etc etc...

Know when to hold em, know when to fold em etc....

I'd often call a raise from a tight player with Q 8 (for example) who you would actually be 90% sure he has Kings or Aces preflop, if there were enough limpers in it to make the odds attractive, and he had a large stack behind him.
[/quote]

This is incredibly silly.

Why? ... Because that particular player will not drop that hand, and you can clean him out with a favourable flop.

In a tourney, you almost never get the right implied odds to hit your hand. (with Q8 for example). 67, 78, 56 ... now you can play. Q8 is just a bag of rubbish.

I agree that when giving advice to new and inexperienced players, there's a case for folding small blinds when you have muck, so that they stay out of trouble they walk blindly into.

However, moving on from that, if I'm getting 7/1 to make up a SB, I'm taking it with any 2 cards, might even raise if my second hand on my watch is in the second quarter.

Raising is a great play, calling is an ok play, but you if you routinely play trash hands in the SB in a multi-way pot, then you are more likely to lose money, than make it.

A lot of this has to do with the fact that you are out of position. The other part is that your hand is trash in the first place.

califano

fuzzbox wrote:

Because if you are played with by a good player on this flop, in a limped pot, then you are likely to be drawing to 3 outs.

Oh right. Because good players always have and play a better hand.

fuzzbox

rounders123 wrote:

Oh right. Because good players always have and play a better hand.

Good players dont get involved for a lot of chips in an unraised pot, on a flop of 774 without a better hand.

Do you frequently go for your stack with 88 there?
What about 99 ?
How about TT ?
AJ ?

What hand do you like to go for your stack with against a small blind on a 774 board?

Culchie

fuzzbox wrote:

Its nothing of the sort.



I'd often call a raise from a tight player with Q 8 (for example) who you would actually be 90% sure he has Kings or Aces preflop, if there were enough limpers in it to make the odds attractive, and he had a large stack behind him.

This is incredibly silly.



In a tourney, you almost never get the right implied odds to hit your hand. (with Q8 for example). 67, 78, 56 ... now you can play. Q8 is just a bag of rubbish.



Raising is a great play, calling is an ok play, but you if you routinely play trash hands in the SB in a multi-way pot, then you are more likely to lose money, than make it.

A lot of this has to do with the fact that you are out of position. The other part is that your hand is trash in the first place.[/QUOTE]









lol ...we'll agree to disagree ... the Q 8 was an example, 67, 78, 56 is a monster !

Anyways, it's hard to write about absolutes in a theoritical hand context, as you have to be there.

Just one thing, an example about how the mind can decipher information without you even knowing it.
I'll carry on calling or raising or folding my SB based on my read of the table.

I cdnuolt blveiee taht I cluod aulaclty uesdnatnrd waht I was
rdgnieg.The phaonmneal pweor of the hmuan mnid Aoccdrnig to
rscheearch at Cmabrigde Uinervtisy, it deosn't mttaer in waht oredr the
ltteers in a wrod are, the olny iprmoatnt tihng is taht the frist and
lsat ltteer be in the rghit pclae. The rset can be a taotl mses and you
can sitll raed it wouthit a
porbelm. Tihs is bcuseae the huamn mnid deos not raed ervey lteter by
istlef, but the wrod as a wlohe. Amzanig huh?

califano

fuzzbox wrote:

Do you frequently go for your stack with 88 there?
QUOTE]

You better believe it:D
88 is the reason i'll be playing the big one in Drogheda on the 5th!


I see your points though.

Gholimoli

rounders123 wrote:

fuzzbox wrote:

Do you frequently go for your stack with 88 there?
QUOTE]

You better believe it:D
88 is the reason i'll be playing the big one in Drogheda on the 5th!


I see your points though.

your calls with 88 and AQ were simply wrong rounders.
the fact that you won all the hands has nothing to do with it being the wrong move.
you were sitting on a big stack and you took risks that were uncalled for seen as that was a game that had the same prise for top 4 or 5 even.
you could have easily been knocked down to an avarage stack or even worse a small stack .