|
||
|
||
|
Server Time: 3/12/2010 8:23:38 AM PACIFIC |
 Position in limit hold'em, Mark Gregorich, 29. Oct 2003 21:11 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| Barry T's recent post on the hold'em proposition (I'm ready to play you Barry!!!) has made me think a lot about the relative importance of position in hold'em. Is position more significant in a ring game, or a short-handed game, or a heads-up match? And, what specific benefits does position afford you in these different types of situations? I'll write my opinions a bit later; I'm curious as to what everybody here thinks. Mark | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Position in limit hold'em, Barry T, 30. Oct 2003 01:42 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| Hi. I'm ready to play you too Mark, but I wish you wouldn't sound so gleeful about it. I honestly have no idea whether the proposition I created is enough for the big blind to overcome what I beleive is a huge positonal disadvantage. It might be even though I doubt it, and I would love to play a few hours to get a real feel for how it would work out in practice (regardless of who wins and loses). I will not play for big bucks because a) I do not play as high as you, b) I probably don't play as well, and c) I am not willing to invest a huge part of my bankroll on this trial. But I can sure put a thousand or two into it. We could play, say, $20-40, for a few hours and see what it feels like. And you already know how I feel about position, so I'll let others have their say. BarryT | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Position in limit hold'em, Formless, 30. Oct 2003 05:43 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| Personally, I think heads up limit poker is just about the toughest game to master. If you don't know how to play against an expert maniac, you will get absolutely creamed. Position is critical in this game. I also think position is less important in raked games (steals are less profitable) and in no-foldem games. on 29. Oct 2003 21:11 Mark Gregorich wrote: > Barry T's recent post on the hold'em proposition (I'm ready to play you > Barry!!!) has made me think a lot about the relative importance of position in > hold'em. Is position more significant in a ring game, or a short-handed game, > or a heads-up match? And, what specific benefits does position afford you in > these different types of situations? > I'll write my opinions a bit later; I'm curious as to what everybody here > thinks. > > Mark > | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Position in limit hold'em, Schuster, 30. Oct 2003 07:05 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| I think position is most important when you have exactly three opponents, especially where no one has shown any strength so far. When it's heads up, a check does not necessarily mean weakness. However, most opponents, if they had a hand worth betting in a 4 handed pot, would not want to run the risk of giving a free card. You can bet a lot lighter if you are 3rd or last to act than if you were first to act in a situation like this. Semibluffing thin draws like a gutshot works often enough to show a profit, and betting middle or bottom pair is almost automatic against straightforward opponents. Even running a total bluff works a fair amount of the time, and can be profitable against the right set of players. That's my opinion anyway. Lee | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Position in limit hold'em, shorn, 30. Oct 2003 07:38 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| I will disagree with the others and say that position is most important in a full ring game. In a head's up match, the most important aspect of the game is knowing how well your opponent plays and HOW he/she plays and then making adjustments accordingly. Same in a SH game. There simply aren't enough situations in heads up where the "value" of your cards comes in to play. Converesely, this is one of the utmost important aspects to full ring game play. Ten handed, JTs might not be playable UTG due to the rest of the field and not knowing what they have/what it will cost to play the hand. SH or heads up, at most this hand can cost you two bets to play (you call and then call raise); ten handed, you could call and it could be capped back to you. This is why I believe position is the number 1 determinant in what/how you play hands in a full game. There is just so much more potential information that you do not have against nine other players than there is against 1 or three. Steve | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Position in limit hold'em, Mark Gregorich, 31. Oct 2003 17:26 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| A few opinions on position (primarily as it applies to limit hold'em): * The closer to a full game you are in, the more your position determines what starting hands are playable (you can play AT off from any position in a 4 handed game, but how the hand should be played is largely position dependent in a 9 handed one). * Being last to act on the flop in a four way pot is far more advantageous than being last to act in a two way pot (hands like second pair can frequently be bet in last position, whereas they must be passed if you are first or second in most cases - also, betting flops where its likely everyone missed - T66 for example - is safer when you are last to act, as most opponents won't check a ten, due to the overcard danger). Contrast this to heads-up pots, in which being first has its advantages. First, its generally pretty reliable that the second player will bet if the first player checks, so you can frequently get a checkraise in if the flop helps you. Also, you can lead at pots on a bluff or draw against one opponent, and frequently pick up the pot - its tough to bluff into three or four opponents though, so position is more important in multiway pots. * A big benefit of position is that it allows you to bet medium strength hands for value on the river. I think this is a big part of what makes hands like QJ or AT more playable in late position (also, playing these hands in unraised pots is better because it is less likely that dominating hands such as AQ are out there, and if you limp in early position with them, you don't yet have a good idea of the relative hand strengths behind you). Its tough to bet just one pair into two or three opponents on the river, but if you are last to act and its checked to you, its much easier to bet with confidence. * Being first to act has its advantages (I wouldn't trade it for last, though), primarily the checkraise weapon, so be sure and use it if your first to act - particularly if the late position players are aggressive! * Be mindful of your position in relation to the aggressive players in the pot. You must be more hesitant to get involved in a marginal situation when the player to your right is betting into you, with players yet to act, particularly if those yet to act are aggressive. Its better to "take one off" when the pot can't get raised behind you. Mark | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Position in limit hold'em, Schuster, 1. Nov 2003 15:16 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| Really good post. Thanks Mark. Lee | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Position in limit hold'em, Schuster, 1. Nov 2003 15:17 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| Really good post. Thanks Mark. Lee | ||
| 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 | Find Vancouver Businesses |
|