|
||
|
||
|
Server Time: 11/23/2008 5:09:28 AM PACIFIC |
 Hold'em Proposition: 2 hands., Barry T, 27. Oct 2003 11:00 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| Hi. You are going to play heads-up hold'em against a good player. This is OK because you are a good player too, right? Anyway, he offers you a proposition. You get to look at your hand and if you do not like it, you can throw it away face up and get a diiferent hand dealt from the deck. You must accept the second hand, though of course you can fold it. In return for being allowed to get this choice, he would like to be the button every hand. So you get two hands (sort of) and he gets position. Would you take this dea? If not, how could I modify it so you would take it. Look at both hands first? BarryT | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Hold'em Proposition: 2 hands., stdioh, 27. Oct 2003 11:11 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| Wow ... that's a really interesting proposition. I don't think I'd take the deal...it would be pretty impossible to win being out of position every single hand ... but the strategy to use as the player who took the deal would be an interesting topic for further discussion. | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Hold'em Proposition: 2 hands., mkpoker, 27. Oct 2003 11:18 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| Forgive me if I'm totally off base here...I always play ring games and look for full tables, so I don't know much about heads up play...BUT Isn't the button also the BB in heads-up play? And if the blind structure is traditional (1/2 SB; 1 SB), that means your opponent will always have twice as much $$ in the pot before anyone sees their cards, yes? Seems like a sucker bet under those circumstances. I'd always take the 2 hands. What am I missing? (I'm probably missing something basic about the blind structure of heads up play...) | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Hold'em Proposition: 2 hands., Barry T, 27. Oct 2003 11:28 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| Hi, In standard heads up poker (unlike what happens at some online sites for programing reasons), the small blind is always on the button (SBB to Andy Glazer) and the big blind is always the other guy. So in my proposition, you would also be the big blind. Button acts first pre-flop and last post-flop. BarryT | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Hold'em Proposition: 2 hands., Brian Starr, 27. Oct 2003 11:32 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| Normally in heads-up the small blind is on the button, but i think that under this proposition the blinds rotate as they normally would but the button doesnt move, correct? Anyways, i dont think i would do it, the advantage of position is too great. If he gave me the option of looking at both before choosing, i still might not do it. In heads-up the cards matter a lot less than in a full game. Its about playing the man, not the cards. There is so much bluffing that position is a huge advantage. on 27. Oct 2003 11:18 mkpoker wrote: > Forgive me if I'm totally off base here...I always play ring games and look for full > tables, so I don't know much about heads up play...BUT > > Isn't the button also the BB in heads-up play? And if the blind structure is > traditional (1/2 SB; 1 SB), that means your opponent will always have twice as much > $$ in the pot before anyone sees their cards, yes? Seems like a sucker bet under > those circumstances. I'd always take the 2 hands. > > What am I missing? (I'm probably missing something basic about the blind structure > of heads up play...) | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Hold'em Proposition: 2 hands., Nathaniel Brous, 27. Oct 2003 12:55 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| on 27. Oct 2003 11:00 Barry T wrote: <snip> If not, how could I modify it so you would take it. Look at both hands first? BarryT How about mucking "face down" for the rejected? - Nathaniel Brous | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Hold'em Proposition: 2 hands., LJH, 27. Oct 2003 14:05 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| BARRY T. I WOULD NEVER TAKE IT AS YOU ALWAYS HAVE THE BETTER ODDS GOING FOR YOU, SINCE YOU SEE YOUR CARDS FIRST. LJH | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Hold'em Proposition: 2 hands., ADAM THE EXPERT, 27. Oct 2003 15:17 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| hA HA HA HA ADAM THE EXPERT, GETS A VERY BIG LAUGH, OUT OF PEOPLE WHO ACTUALLY THINK THAT POSITION, IS OF SUPREME IMPORTANCE, IN LIMIT HOLD 'EM. TEE HEE, WHERE DID THEY GET THEIR INFORMATION? THE MAIN CONSIDERATION OF POSITION, IS IN A FULL GAME, WHERE YOU DON'T WANT TO BE CAUGHT WITH A HAND THAT MAY BE DOMINATED. IN A HEADS UP GAME, (YOU FAILED TO MENTION THIS, AND IT REPRESENTS THE KEY TO YOUR QUESTION) THE SMALL BLIND IS ON THE BUTTON, AND ACTS FIRST, SO, YOU WOULD BE THE BIG BLIND, ACT LAST BEFORE THE FLOP, AND GET TO THROW AWAY A HOPELESS HAND, AND GET ANOTHER. WHAT A GREAT DEAL, WANT TO PLAY ME??? IN A HEADS UP GAME, HAVING A GOOD READ ON ONE'S OPPONENT, IS MUCH MORE IMPORTANT THAN "POSITION" I GET SO SICK AND TIRED OF HEARING THIS MISCONCEPTION, ABOUT POSITION BEING VERY IMPORTANT. THEIR ARE GAMES, WHERE IT IS IMPORTANT, BUT IN GENERAL, LIMIT HOLD EM, IS NOT ONE OF THEM. SOMETIMES, ACTING FIRST, IS AN ADVANTAGE, AS YOU CAN GET AWAY WITH MORE BLUFFS, BY PEOPLE WHO THINK THAT YOU MUST BE STRONG, AS YOU ARE BETTING INTO A FIELD. NO ONE RESPECT A LAST POSITION BET, THEY ARE EVEN EXPECTING IT. IN A GAME WITH CHECK-RAISE, THOSE WHO TRY TO ABUSE THEIR LATE OR LAST POSITION, ARE GOING TO GET CHECK RAISED, TO KINGDOM COME. IN YOUR EXAMPLE, WE MUST REMEMBER, THAT THERE WILL OFTEN NOT EVEN BE A FLOP, OR A TURN, OR A RIVER. SO, ACTING LAST BEFORE THE FLOP, AS THE BIG BLIND WILL, IS MORE IMPORTANT. AND HAVING THE ABILITY, TO SEE TWO HANDS, IS A HUGE ADVANTAGE. NOT ONLY DO YOU GET A CHANCE AT A MONSTER, WHEN THE FIRST ONE WAS POO POO, BUT YOU ALSO HAVE THE KNOWLEDGE OF TWO MORE CARDS THAT ARE REMOVED FROM PLAY. MY ADVICE: IF YOU CAN PLAY TOUGH, GO FOR IT. | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Hold'em Proposition: 2 hands., modestmice, 27. Oct 2003 16:36 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| right yet again.... | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Hold'em Proposition: 2 hands., Phish, 27. Oct 2003 15:26 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| A no brainer for me. I would take this proposition any day. Being forced to post the big blind every hand may be an issue, but given that the button will most likely play almost every hand anyways, it's not a big disadvantage. As for the positional disadvantage, my opinion is that in heads-up play, it is less of a disadvantage than multi-way. And this is because a good tricky heads-up player can mix up his play enough so that his opponent will not necessarily know that a check is weak or a bet is strong or a checkraise is always strong. But being able to select the better of two hands (the second proposition) is a HUGH advantage. Even the first proposition of being able to reject the first hand and get a second hand is enough of an edge. Plus, you get to see two additional cards your opponent doesn't. Under the first proposition, I would keep any pair, any ace, any suited K, K7 or better offsuit, suited Q's to the 7, offsuit Q to the 9, any two suited cards higher than 7, offsuit JT,J9. Dump the rest and take your chance on the second hand. | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Hold'em Proposition: 2 hands., Mark Gregorich, 27. Oct 2003 16:05 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| I would take it in a second. Sure, you have the big blind every hand, but that's offset by being able to act last preflop (I think the button will fold a lot of hands to you, realizing that you have the option of replacing your cards). Also, having the big blind every hand heads up isn't nearly as bad as having it every hand in a ring game - you will see a very high percentage of the flops playing heads-up. I also think that being out of position is somewhat overrated when playing heads-up. You can pick up a lot of pots just by betting out when you're first to act, and can gain value on some of your good hands by checkraising. Take the extra hand! I don't think you can lose. Mark | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Hold'em Proposition: 2 hands., Barry T, 27. Oct 2003 19:44 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| Hi,. I am very surprised to hear this. I believe (and I thought everyone did) that postion INCREASES in importance as the number of players goes down. If we consider the extremes, would a person rather have the button 22 handed or 2 handed? Obviously (it is obvious right?) in the two handed situation it is far more important to have position. You will always get to get/raise your best ahnds, and check your marginal ones if you choose. And you will be playing a lot of hands. Clearly it will be possible to devise a handicap method to make the small blind playable. I did not think my proposition came close to achieving that, though I expected it came close. I would always take the button in my proposition (and it sounds like I have some takers, so I may get to find out). BarryT | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Hold'em Proposition: 2 hands., Schuster, 27. Oct 2003 20:04 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| Hi Barry. In my mind, position is most important when the pot is contested with a medium amount of opponents, three or four. With more than four, you'll have to show down the best hand more often than not, and with less than three, checkraising is a viable threat, and often first position can be used for better bluffing. I think that having position against 3 opponents is more important than having position against only one opponent. Since your question seems to be, at it's base, a query into the power of position, I believe that being out of position is not enough of a disadvantage to getting two hands. However, being that you do have to post twice the blinds every hand, it might swing the outcome. If the blinds were somehow made more equitable to both sides, I would definately side with taking the 2 hands. Even as the proposition stands now, I would take the 2 hands, but it's a lot closer in my mind. The extra psychology of "keeping" the first hand would be a fairly decent edge in my mind, as long as I felt I was on par with my opponent. Lee | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Hold'em Proposition: 2 hands., Lou Krieger, 27. Oct 2003 16:11 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| Barry... I'm assuming we're talking limit hold'em here. If I could look at both hands simultaneously and choose one, I'd take that proposition in a limit game, although I'm not really sure why: it just feels right to me. After all, even if you're always first to act, you can always control the maximum amount of money going into the pot in a limit game. But if we were playing no-limit, I think I'd want position. Which side of this proposition would you want, and why? Lou Krieger Raise your game with Lou Krieger, author of "Poker For Dummies" and five other books about poker, at Royal Vegas Poker http://www.royalvegaspoker.com/lou | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Hold'em Proposition: 2 hands., Lou Krieger, 27. Oct 2003 16:12 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| Barry... I'm assuming we're talking limit hold'em here. If I could look at both hands simultaneously and choose one, I'd take that proposition in a limit game, although I'm not really sure why: it just feels right to me. After all, even if you're always first to act, you can always control the maximum amount of money going into the pot in a limit game. But if we were playing no-limit, I think I'd want position. Which side of this proposition would you want, and why? Lou Krieger Raise your game with Lou Krieger, author of "Poker For Dummies" and five other books about poker, at Royal Vegas Poker http://www.royalvegaspoker.com/lou | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Hold'em Proposition: 2 hands., Barry T, 27. Oct 2003 19:37 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| Hi. Yes, I am talking about limit hold'em. And thnaks for your reply. BarryT | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| POKER FORUM HOME | POKER FORUM | LINK TO US | ARCHIVE | ONLINE POKER | Copyright 2002, United Poker Forum |
|
Getting Started |
UPF Tournaments |
Poker News, Views, Rules |
Poker Strategy & Psychology |
Money and Bankroll Poker Bonuses & Promotions | World Series of Poker (WSOP) | Play Online Poker | Poker Odds & Statistics | Tournament Poker | Poker Books, Videos & Learning Tools Looking for a Poker Game | Poker Bad Beats | Not Quite Poker | Quizzes and Polls | Forum Suggestions & Bugs |
|
|
|
|
Interesting Links: Online Poker | Free Poker Games | United Poker Network |
|