Small blind defense vs quality opponents
Abdul Jalib
either discuss alleged collusion on W2-G forms or we can talk about
some aspect of poker that we've already discussed before.
Historically, I've been a raise-or-fold kind of guy, doubly so in the
small blind versus a late lone raiser. However, in 60-120/80-160 games,
I've noticed a surprising amount of smooth calling in the small blind
versus a lone raiser, even a late lone raiser.
Are these players...
A) ...onto something
B) ...on something
C) ...colluding
D) ...posting their W2-G's on the Internet
?
I've got a theory that I'll save for follow-up post.
--
Abdul
Abdul Jalib
> Historically, I've been a raise-or-fold kind of guy, doubly so in the
> small blind versus a late lone raiser. However, in 60-120/80-160 games,
> I've noticed a surprising amount of smooth calling in the small blind
> versus a lone raiser, even a late lone raiser.
>
> Are these players...
>
> A) ...onto something
> B) ...on something
> C) ...colluding
> D) ...posting their W2-G's on the Internet
> ?
>
> I've got a theory that I'll save for [a] follow-up post.
So here we are in my follow-up post...
It's possible that they are A) onto something. High caliber opponents
are aggressive about stealing the blinds when they think they can get
away with it. If you go with a 3-bet-or-fold policy in the small
blind versus a late raiser, you can play fewer hands than if you
sometimes called. (I've stated it as fact, but feel free to debate
it.) Playing fewer hands will in turn provoke the high caliber players
to put pressure on your small blind, especially if there is a tight
player behind you in the big blind. So, adding in more hands via some
flat calling possibly could take some heat off your small blind.
I've listed some other benefits of smooth calling in the thread,
"Calling raises cold, especially on the small blind in the 20-40 on PP."
Unless they are B) on something, I've made a lot of mistakes in this
spot over the years. I've always had the belief that just about any
hand plays better heads up than 3-way.
C) colluding was intended as a joke, but come to think of it, when the
small blind and big blind are on the same bankroll, then sure.
--
Abdul
Bill Atkins
> B) ...on something
> C) ...colluding
> D) ...posting their W2-G's on the Internet
> ?
>
Abdul... a breath of fresh air. Or should I say an oasis in the desert?
Glad to see you posting again after a long while, I was tired of just
reading your archived posts. Contrary to what you might see, I DO want to
talk poker too.
I would imagine the answer is A) since you are bringing it up and because
it is being utilized at the higher limits, but I'm was still going to say
B). I'm a 3bet or fold type of guy in the SB as well. Assuming a lone
late position raise with a great chace that he is weak and on a steal, it
seems like the only hand you want to play is one that does well heads-up
like an Ace or pair. Or even if you want to resteal with a weakish hand,
it still makes sense to 3 bet to drive out the BB and gain initiative.
This is all 'basic strategy' so I know Im not saying anything people don't
know.
Maybe the 3-bet in the SB play has become so 'standard' now that _smooth
calling_ actually implies more strength than a 3bet and is a scarier
image. Scary enough that it NOW acomplishes what a 3 bet in the SB was
designed to do. The image of a smooth call in this situation is like you
are trying to "trap" the BB into calling, and the only hand that you would
want that is AA, or KK or the like. Why the hell else would you not 3 bet
since everyone knows the reasons I gave above? The BB might be so
suspicious of a smooth call by you that he folds anyway to duck the
'trap', and it makes the Late Raiser worry, giving you initiative anyway
that a 3 bet would. So it costs you less and actually induces more fear
than a 3 bet.
I have noticed that certain 'basic strategy' plays are NOW so common that
they have lost all effectiveness (another example is betting in early
position on the turn after its been checked around on the flop - people
are checking strong flopped hands in late position to 'trap' this turn
stealer). Usually a 3 bet implies a lot of strength, but it is so common
in the SB in this situation that the Late Raiser will NOT give him
additional credit for strength. And even the BB might call the 3-bet
knowing that both the Late Raiser and the SB might be weaker than usual
(or even cap it).
However, at the levels I play at (usually 20-40 +/-1 level), in my
geographical area, I still see 3bet or fold in this situation almost
exclusively, so I haven't seen smooth calling like you have. Maybe I can
be the first to use a smooth call strat, so Im curious to hear your theroy.
Is your theory now that what was once 'powerful plays' have become so
standard that other strategies are now needed to adjust to them becoming
standard?
Bill,
Rambling because he found something good to talk about.
_________________________________________________________________
Posted using RecPoker.com - http://www.recpoker.com
T. Chan
>It's possible that they are A) onto something. High caliber opponents
>are aggressive about stealing the blinds when they think they can get
>away with it. If you go with a 3-bet-or-fold policy in the small
>blind versus a late raiser, you can play fewer hands than if you
>sometimes called. (I've stated it as fact, but feel free to debate
>it.)
It's pretty clear to me that this is correct for the reasons you
stated in the other thread, but the question is: which hands are the
ones you'd muck to a steal-raise if you had a 3-bet-or-fold policy but
call with if you didn't? My best guess is the medium suited
connectors and perhaps the baby pairs. I would be loathe to loosen up
on the Ax hands for fear of giving the BB 5:1 and suffer from reverse
implied odds problem.
In tight-aggressive games, there is also a play-balancing problem. If
you're frequently up against steal-raises, you're likely to leak
information if you smooth call from the SB with a very weak set of
hands.
Playing fewer hands will in turn provoke the high caliber players
>to put pressure on your small blind, especially if there is a tight
>player behind you in the big blind. So, adding in more hands via some
>flat calling possibly could take some heat off your small blind.
I was just about to mention that -- at least below 20/40 where I play
-- you very often get a tell from weak players that they are about to
fold the BB. I probably smooth call in the SB less than 10% of the
time, but a huge majority of those times is when I see that the BB has
already peeked at his hand and is getting ready to fold. That allows
me to limp a lot weaker. The rest of the time, I probably just woke
up to aces.
Oh, I just thought of one more reason I didn't see mentioned in favour
of calling in the SB, but I don't know how valid it is: Pot
manipulation. As you mentioned in the other thread, 3-bet-and-lead
means you're getting even-money. But call-and-lead lays you 7:5 and
might actually work more often than 3-bet-and-lead if the BB folds
preflop (even though your opponent would be making a mistake if this
were true).
--
Self-indulgent homepage warning:
http://www.sfu.ca/~tchand/
T. Chan
wrote:
>I was just about to mention that -- at least below 20/40 where I play
>-- you very often get a tell from weak players that they are about to
>fold the BB.
Oops, this is ambiguous and liable to be misinterpreted. Read instead
as, "I was just abuot to mention that you [I] very often get a tell
from weak players that they are about to fold the BB -- at least below
20/40, where I play."
Tom Weideman
> It's possible that they are A) onto something. High caliber opponents
> are aggressive about stealing the blinds when they think they can get
> away with it. If you go with a 3-bet-or-fold policy in the small
> blind versus a late raiser, you can play fewer hands than if you
> sometimes called. (I've stated it as fact, but feel free to debate
> it.) Playing fewer hands will in turn provoke the high caliber players
> to put pressure on your small blind, especially if there is a tight
> player behind you in the big blind. So, adding in more hands via some
> flat calling possibly could take some heat off your small blind.
There's another reason it could have this effect. If I know that the small
blind will only reraise or fold, then I figure it is much more likely that I
will be heads-up postflop with dead money in the pot if I raise the blinds
than if the SB typically just calls. This is a huge plus. What is more,
the times when I am probably in more trouble (the SB reraise), the dead
money in the pot is greater (the BB is scraped off). Thus a raise-or-fold
small blind certainly encourages me to raise the blinds, while a small blind
caller discourages me.
But I actually don't think this is the primary reason for choosing to
frequently call in the SB rather than reraise.
Tom Weideman
Howard Lederer
"Abdul Jalib" <Abd...@PosEV.com> wrote in message
news:l8v8z2r...@posev.com...
I am going to go with A. At least in the bigger games, I like to call quite
a bit from the small blind. To do this I think you call with your medium
hands and take many of the hands you might raise with in a raise or fold
strategy and make them calls. This way you can not be easily marked when
you call, as you will call with a large range of hands. I know this marks
you as being really strong when you re-raise, but you shouldn't mind so much
as you probably have the raiser dominated and you get the BB out with a hand
that plays better heads-up. Likewise, just calling with a lot of decent to
moderately strong hands and letting the BB in also plays OK. These tend to
be hands that should play OK in three way pots. As long as you avoid the
A-x, K-x (s), Q-x (s) type hands I think this way of playing keeps them
guessing. And discourages blind stealing.
Howard Lederer
DaVoice
I am beginning to believe that in the sb defense position that you can
really mask the strength of your hand by simply calling a lone raise
rather than playing back or making the initial raise. If people perceive
you as "predictable" this is especially true.
I played in a single table NL satellite for the Hall of Fame today, and
kept noticing (as did the eventual winner) that a lot of the really
"predictable" players were making erratic bets, ALL in UTG, 2x the blind,
limping exessively and really tipping us off to the strength of their hand
as well as their NL play.
I chose to try something new today. I smooth called EVERY SB that I
played at all, this was very confusing to everyone (except me) and when I
made this play with QQ knocked out three players in one pot.
Unfortunately my KQ s00ted heads up was no match for Charlie's A4o and he
had me by 3 chips. IGHN, but I went home with the feeling that being
consistent with my SB play got me a lot of extra bets.
Thoughts?
Rick "DaVoice" Charles
Ikke
to doubt that strategy a bit.
I don't play a lot 10-handed anymore, but do a lot shorthanded (5-max
online), where you see these situations a lot.
I think it can have merit to just coldcall in the SB, with certain
kind of hands and against certain kind of opponents. Normally I
experience great difficulty playing a mediocre hand against a loose
button raise, who plays both loose pre and postflop. For instance a
hand like JTs. Against a loose buttonraiser I think this hand is too
good to give up. However, if you 3-bet and get it HU, you often get in
trouble on many boards if your opponent often calls your flop bet,
with strong and bad hands. Your turn play is becoming extremely
difficult. This is one of the situations I see merit in coldcalling.
You often let the BB in, so by getting it 3-way your bluffing
opportunities go down, and IMO this kind of hand will be easier to
play, because you're less likely to get outplayed.
Other hands are for instance big pocket pairs. Why not let the BB in
with heavily dominated hands like QJ, QT etc when you hold QQ-AA.
So, I think it's valuable to explore in which kind of situations
coldcalling in the SB against a late openraiser would have the merits.
I think this is a very important subject (especially shorthanded), and
I'm looking forward to your arguments and that of others.
Regards
P.S. I dont know anything about colluding and W2-G's so I'll leave
that to others :-)
Abdul Jalib <Abd...@PosEV.com> wrote in message news:<l8v8z2r...@posev.com>...
Jonathan Kaplan.com>
A. they are onto something.
calling the SB occasionally does a couple of things. it takes pressure off you
in later hands, if your opponent knows you are capable of "just" calling in this
spot. you arent just a raise/fold player.
and the real play here, is to call the late raiser, check/call the flop (cause
late raisers almost always bet out there, heads up, but even if they dont),
then, bet out the turn, no matter what you have. the raiser folds often in that
spot, and he remembers it, and wont steal so much in the future. and if he
doesnt fold the turn, one can just get away if necessary.
i love the "smooth call with nothing (from the blinds) to set up the first
position bet later" play. dont do it alot and it works great.
and, it is fun to boot....grin
this play worked great in the 80-160 games i played in may, btw....
Jonathan
no matter where you go, there you are....
Russell R.
raising is so common it is fairly meanigless. Thus, if I re raise out
of the blind and then bet a flop of Q-9-4 I will probably get reraised
by 10-9. If I just call and check raise the same flop I think it
implies more strength (it looks like I actually hit something) and I
may take the pot (or perhaps take it on a later street). Of course
this would be moot if the opponent would fold to my re-raise preflop
but that in general would never happen. Still I think it is important
to vary ones play here (obviously). And if the raiser is fairly weak
tight, I may reraise almost all hands and bet the flop if he will be
inclined to fold. If I find that he will hold on to any big ace or any
pair until showdown, then I probably call with A LOT of hands because
clearly if I can never bluff he must be paying me off too much.
"Howard Lederer" <how...@lvcm.com> wrote in message news:<4c1b9.16000$Ic7.1...@news2.west.cox.net>...
Dsklansky
on the head. There is a simpler answer. Which is in 80-160 games, the big blind
is more likely to fold without being reraised when his hand is weak and more
likely to shrug off the reraise when his hand isn't.
A. Prock
I can only tell you what I am thinking when I cold
call. I WANT the big blind in this pot. Usually,
this is because I have a monster (JJ,AK+), or I have
a hand that I want to see the flop with but will have
an easy time dumping if I miss (87s, K8s), but which
really wouldn't mind an extra tag-along.
I also tend to make this play to keep medium-tight tricky
players off my back, and to make the post-flop play
easier. It's much easier to dump K8s when you miss the
flop versus two opponents. Versus one opponent, you
are in a tight bind. You just might have the best
hands, you might have outs, and you might be able to
blow the raiser of a better hand (KQo) heads-up. The
bifurcation is much more complex heads-up than it is
three-ways.
- Andrew
Jonathan Kaplan.com>
there are at least two grammatical errors (one big) in the above statement, and
at least one minor punctuation error. also, there is one error that comes from
some lack of observation skill.
i'll leave it to others to elaborate.
grin
more seriously, while David S's point is accurate, it isnt THE answer. the
question is too complex for that answer to be THE answer, even if it is a very
important factor. the head of that nail was big enough for all of our answers to
be correct, even the replies from those other 160 IQs.
Abe Froman
As long as you avoid the
> A-x, K-x (s), Q-x (s) type hands I think this way of playing keeps them
> guessing. And discourages blind stealing.
>
> Howard Lederer
Howard,
What are your opinions on the aforementioned hands in the big blind
vs. a steal raise when the small blind has a) called, b) folded, and
c) 3-bet?
Thank you.
Abe
jimpepper
> In article <20020828122601...@mb-fa.aol.com>, Dsklansky says...
> >
> >None of the 160 IQs who answered before me, nor Jonathon Kaplan, hit the nail
> >on the head. There is a simpler answer. Which is in 80-160 games, the big blind
> >is more likely to fold without being reraised when his hand is weak and more
> >likely to shrug off the reraise when his hand isn't.
>
> there are at least two grammatical errors (one big) in the above statement, and
> at least one minor punctuation error. also, there is one error that comes from
> some lack of observation skill.
> i'll leave it to others to elaborate.
> grin
Well the odds are I do not have a 160 IQ,
but I do know your name is spelled "Jonathan".
jim
Bad Bob
"jimpepper" <jamese...@NOSPAMattbi.com> wrote:
>
> Well the odds are I do not have a 160 IQ,
> but I do know your name is spelled "Jonathan".
> jim
Jonathon sounds like a bad case of diarrhea.
Piers Shepperson
Think you need to cycle ABC to get the right order.
As to calling in the small blind, the only reason I would normally be
tempted to do this is if the big blind was a particularly bad player
however this possibility appears to be eliminated by the title.
Certainly I can't believe it is ever good to call with a hand with
small or medium cards (pairs), which play badly three ways. It might
be conceivable to call with Big Cards that play well three ways, as
youre initial loss (if any) is much smaller.
However the assumption of quality opponents, suggests they would pick
up on this distinction. Hence minimising the information leak would
appear to be the deciding factor in any close decisions.
Piers Shepperson
> I (Abdul) wrote:
> It's possible that they are A) onto something. High caliber opponents
> are aggressive about stealing the blinds when they think they can get
> away with it. If you go with a 3-bet-or-fold policy in the small
> blind versus a late raiser, you can play fewer hands than if you
> sometimes called. (I've stated it as fact, but feel free to debate
> it.) Playing fewer hands will in turn provoke the high caliber players
> to put pressure on your small blind, especially if there is a tight
> player behind you in the big blind. So, adding in more hands via some
> flat calling possibly could take some heat off your small blind.
> I've listed some other benefits of smooth calling in the thread,
> "Calling raises cold, especially on the small blind in the 20-40 on PP."
>
> Unless they are B) on something, I've made a lot of mistakes in this
> spot over the years. I've always had the belief that just about any
> hand plays better heads up than 3-way.
>
> C) colluding was intended as a joke, but come to think of it, when the
> small blind and big blind are on the same bankroll, then sure.
A) I have never been entirely convinced by the type of argument that
says it is always good to take some heat off your small blind. Surly
the situation is that if someone is attacking the blinds correctly any
change is good; otherwise you want to encourage their bias. The rake
would appear to creates a loss - loss window that creates a bias in
favour of discouraging blind stealing, however despite this I would
expect that you would still normally want to make an already
aggressive player even more aggressive?
So I guess it depends on the raiser. But how do handle the information
leak, or are you really saying you would call a raise in the small
blind with 77?
B) I am not sure what you say makes sense; maybe it needs some
context? The way I see it, big cards (AK, AQ, AJ etc) gain value going
from two way to three way. (Top pair top(big) kicker still usually
wins, but the pot is that much bigger.)
Howard Lederer
assumption about the BB. In my game, this is not the case. Players call
with a lot of hands for one raise and fold to two bets a lot out of the BB.
I would put myself in this category.
Howard Lederer
"Dsklansky" <dskl...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20020828122601...@mb-fa.aol.com...
Mark Rafn
>Small blind defense has been discussed many times before...
>Historically, I've been a raise-or-fold kind of guy, doubly so in the
>small blind versus a late lone raiser. However, in 60-120/80-160 games,
>I've noticed a surprising amount of smooth calling in the small blind
>versus a lone raiser, even a late lone raiser.
I don't play at these limits, so this may not apply directly, but I tend
to call from the SB more than I raise in similar tourney situations and
the rare occasion that I have only one potential-stealer when it gets to
me in the SB in my lower limit games.
I seem to take more pots by calling from the blind and then betting most
flops than I do if I raise and then bet. It's as if a preflop reraise
primes my opponent to believe I'm pushing back at his steal, but a call then
a bet is believable as hitting something. Also, my opponent is getting
better odds on the flop if I reraised earlier.
--
Mark Rafn da...@dagon.net <http://www.dagon.net/>
Abdul Jalib
3+ player poker is not zero sum between each pair of players. That
is, an overaggressive blind stealer can lose money for both himself
and you in your small blind, with other players being the
beneficiaries.
> So I guess it depends on the raiser. But how do handle the information
> leak, or are you really saying you would call a raise in the small
> blind with 77?
No, I would normally 3-bet with 77 versus a late raiser. If you want
to balance calling with stuff like JTs, the obvious approach is to
call with AA and other big pocket pairs as needed.
> B) I am not sure what you say makes sense; maybe it needs some
> context? The way I see it, big cards (AK, AQ, AJ etc) gain value going
> from two way to three way. (Top pair top(big) kicker still usually
> wins, but the pot is that much bigger.)
AK/AQ/AJ lose value going from 2-way to 3-way. Nut nothing is
more likely to hold up 2-way than 3-way. It's also a lot easier
to play ace high heads up.
--
Abdul
Jaque Mate
Care to elavorate :
> But I actually don't think this is the primary reason for choosing to
> frequently call in the SB rather than reraise.
Lets for once keep talking about poker..
thanks Abul and Tom..
JAque
"Tom Weideman" <zwi...@attbi.com> wrote in message
news:B991E0C5.19866%zwi...@attbi.com...
Tom Weideman
> Hey Tom:
>
> Care to elavorate :
>
>> But I actually don't think this is the primary reason for choosing to
>> frequently call in the SB rather than reraise.
> Lets for once keep talking about poker..
Okay, but just this once, then I want to go back to saving my energy for
petty quarrelling.
I'll make some general statements that I will not elaborate on beyond what I
say here:
1. One of the biggest reasons that having position is advantageous is that
it allows you to get more value from mediocre-decent hands by going into
"make sure one bet gets in the pot" mode. What I mean by this is that very
often (especially on the river) your hand will be strong enough to call a
bet, and strong enough to bet if checked to you (due to the implied weakness
from the check), but not strong enough to bet into a player who has not yet
acted (and therefore has not implied weakness).
2. The bigger the pot is, the more hands can be considered "mediocre-decent"
(as I called them above). This is because an opponent cannot afford to fold
very often when the pot gets large, so you can afford to squeeze out even
thinner value bets.
3. Being out of position against two players is not that much worse than
being out of position against one. There are a few reasons for this, but
the two biggest are related to #1 above (I'll let you work out that
reasoning), and the fact that the pot is somewhat more protected 3-handed,
taking away some of the bluff and value bet options for the player(s) with
position on you.
4. If both blinds call, the small blind position is generally a little bit
better than the big blind position when the preflop raiser is likely to bet
most or all of his hands on the flop if checked to. Frequently in these
cases the small blind and preflop raiser (if they are good players)
more-or-less implicitly collude against the big blind with a
check/check/bet/raise sequence, even with fairly weak hands.
5. Many hands are too strong to fold, but they are likely to be weaker than
the raiser's hand. Oftentimes in these cases a board that allows such a
hand to beat the preflop leader also makes it likely that this hand will
beat other hands as well. (No way could I go a whole post without some
reference - albeit a vague one - to Bayes' Theorem.) When this is the case,
getting another bet of strange money from a third player is usually better
than investing a bet to get it from the original raiser.
6. The pot is pretty small, and the big blind may not defend even if you
just call (David's point, which I didn't think hit the nail on the head,
either, btw).
Put all of these together, and I think it paints the picture I have in mind
pretty clearly:
Your all-in equity might actually be slightly better (or more likely very
marginally worse, but not enough to risk allowing another reraise) by just
calling (items 5 and 6), and postflop you are in nowhere near as much
trouble as when you reraise (items 1-4).
Okay, I've said way too much already.
Tom Weideman
Lee Munzer
"Tom Weideman"
> Okay, I've said way too much already.
No elaboration required ... excellent information.
Lee
JonCooke
But isn't this info leak more worrying?
If your calling with QJ/J10 type hands and raising with pairs/A hands,
doesn't that make the stealers flop play easier in heads up pots?
I would think the reason to raise or fold is to disguise whether you
have J10s or AK, for example.
Abdul Jalib
> 3. Being out of position against two players is not that much worse than
> being out of position against one. There are a few reasons for this, but
> the two biggest are related to #1 above (I'll let you work out that
> reasoning), and the fact that the pot is somewhat more protected 3-handed,
> taking away some of the bluff and value bet options for the player(s) with
> position on you.
The most likely action sequence on the flop is check-check-bet.
That's fine and dandy if you, as the small blind, have a strong hand
and want to raise or call. However, if you have a weak draw,
like a 3-straight-flush and two overcards, you're now in between a bet
and a potential raiser, and so you may be forced to fold a hand that
would have been an easy call when closing the action. The big blind
has "position relative to the raiser," and the small blind is in
between a rock (a bet) and a hard place (a potential raiser.) You can
try to compensate by betting out with some of those marginal draws and
check-raising with made hands to discourage bets for the sake of the
rest of your marginal draws. Still, it's an uncomfortable spot.
> 4. If both blinds call, the small blind position is generally a little bit
> better than the big blind position when the preflop raiser is likely to bet
> most or all of his hands on the flop if checked to. Frequently in these
> cases the small blind and preflop raiser (if they are good players)
> more-or-less implicitly collude against the big blind with a
> check/check/bet/raise sequence, even with fairly weak hands.
I think all the problems I mentioned are lessened versus a late/loose
raiser who is not so likely to bet. Against an automatic last
position bettor, the big blind's check on the flop is almost
meaningless. He is going to check hands he would normally bet there,
with the intention of 3-betting when it gets back to him. So, the
action goes check-check to the automatic bettor, who bets... what
information have you gained? If the big blind is easy to push out
with a raise, then your "implicit collusion" argument would kick in.
Otherwise, it's a bad spot.
--
Abdul
Tom Weideman
>> 4. If both blinds call, the small blind position is generally a little bit
>> better than the big blind position when the preflop raiser is likely to bet
>> most or all of his hands on the flop if checked to. Frequently in these
>> cases the small blind and preflop raiser (if they are good players)
>> more-or-less implicitly collude against the big blind with a
>> check/check/bet/raise sequence, even with fairly weak hands.
>
> I think all the problems I mentioned are lessened versus a late/loose
> raiser who is not so likely to bet. Against an automatic last
> position bettor, the big blind's check on the flop is almost
> meaningless. He is going to check hands he would normally bet there,
> with the intention of 3-betting when it gets back to him. So, the
> action goes check-check to the automatic bettor, who bets... what
> information have you gained?
I have learned something about the showdown strength of my hand - I got to
see the flop. At no point did I claim that the BB's check implied weakness.
But his hand set from the preflop action will be pretty big, and worrying
about his having a big hand on the flop is seeing monsters under the bed. I
mean, when you raise preflop from the cutoff, you have no information about
the button either, but that fact shouldn't freeze you up.
> If the big blind is easy to push out
> with a raise, then your "implicit collusion" argument would kick in.
> Otherwise, it's a bad spot.
Maybe you can define "easy to push out with a raise" for us. If you are
asserting that the big blind would be correct in calling with hands like two
overcards, gutshots with an overcard, or non-top pair, and would be "easy to
push out with a raise" if he folded these hands, then I guess I might agree
with you that your position sucks because you can't use it to promote your
weaker hands. But such a BB opponent would lose a fortune with his superior
position anyway. Remember, HE has an unknown behind him as well.
Tom Weideman