Stats post - so I'm getting reamed in the ass in the BB

Context: 6max, 25NL cash.

I've done a bit of stats review tonight, and I'd like some feedback on my stats. It looks distinctly like I'm playing my BB very badly. Probably the SB too, but I don't really know how much I should be expecting to lose from the blinds - anyone got some stats for me?

Here are my overall stats by position:

http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e1...ps711dde17.jpg

And here are my stats when facing either a single raise, a raise+callers, or multiple raises:

http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e1...ps48fecba4.jpg

So it's apparent that I'm getting shafted in the rectum when I'm in the BB.

Here's the overall stats, filtered for PFR (so only when I raised first in, or 3bet, therefore in the BB this can only be when I 3bet):

http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e1...psa3bd379a.jpg

That's more like it.

Now here's the overall stats, filtered for when "not PFR", so when I folded or called:

http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e1...ps6f00f664.jpg

What a fucking disgrace.

However here's the thing - at first I thought maybe I'm being to passive and calling too much from the BB (it didn't feel like it, but I figured I may be wrong), and if you look at image 1 (overall, completely unfiltered stats) there is a big gap between VPIP and PFR showing that I am being somewhat passive from the BB, but a fair bit of that could be legit (calling wide IP when facing an SB open).

So I tried filtering for VPIP=No (so when I did not call) and filtering to hands where the CO, BTN or SB raised it.

So in short, these filters pick out the hands where I got my blinds stolen.

Here's the stats:

http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e1...ps812074ea.jpg

So I'm not defending my blinds enough.

And it makes sense, because I don't really have blind defence default ranges, and it's not something I have thought through properly, so I deserve to be losing money, but that stops today.

So, has anyone any other observations on my stats, and in particular has anyone got any good suggestions for reading and study material on blind defence.

The first thing I remind anyone who's really concerned about winrate from the blinds is to remember that you have a different base-line. In the BB, you run -100bb/100 if you fold every hand, while at other positions (not SB, obv.), you would run 0bb/100 if you did the same.

So a winrate of -40 bb/100 is equivalent to a winrate of +60bb/100 from any non-blind position.

So take a grain of salt when looking at those (seemingly) terrible low numbers.


Other than that, I found this quite informative a little while back:
Blind Stealing 102: "Blind Defense" by spoonitnow

Nice stats. They look very good. Like Mojo said, you're beating folding from the blinds, which is good. That's winning blinds play. Better than most people I'm sure.

One thing I'd be careful of is thinking of them as 'your blinds'. The blinds don't belong to the blinds any more than they do to any other player at the table. Like every pot, the blinds belong to the dealer to be held in escrow and awarded to the winner of the hand. The only thing being in the blinds does is give you a small discount to play the hand which is really not that great compensation for playing from the worst position at the table. We don't have to 'defend the blinds' to be winning players.

The only thing the blinds have going for them is that a tag's button opening range, when there are also tags in the blinds, is going to be very weak, so of course you can resteal occasionally. Other than that, blind play just sucks.

Look at it this way. Your VPIP is pretty much 20% in the BB, so you're defending 20%.
This means 80% of the time you are losing 1bb per hand or 100bb/100.

0.8*(-100)+0.2*x = -47bb/100
x = 165bb/100

This means that when you ARE calling you are running at 165bb/100 (if my math/method is right). So yes it is VERY obvious that you are not defending enough. Like mojo said, your baseline is -100bb/100. You should be playing EVERY hand in the BB that is expected to do better than -100bb/100.

Also you should probably be defending MORE from the BB than SB, given your baseline for the BB is -100bb/100 and the baseline in the SB is -50bb/100. I don't think the times you get to steal BVB should make up for such a big discrepancy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by abelardx

Nice stats. They look very good. Like Mojo said, you're beating folding from the blinds, which is good. That's winning blinds play. Better than most people I'm sure.

---

Well thanks, but honestly I suspect you're wrong - I've just been doing some googling right now, and although I haven't been at it long, it seems that when people have brought this up on forums before, something like -15bb/100 from the BB and -30bb/100 from the BB ought to be possible, maybe better than that.

I mean, look at my overall stats over 117,000 hands - I'm down 6bb/100, if I could halve my loss-rates from the blinds, I'd be a breakeven player.

Now it's not necessarily that simple, it may be that I also need to be doing better from the CO to offset some of my inevitable losses in the blinds (although I am pleased to see I seem to be doing OK from the BTN, but that's kind of inevitable), but I still think I must be _badly_ misplaying my blinds - probably by being way too tight.

However I don't want to be too passive OOP by starting calling to much from the blinds, and nor do I want to succumb to my spewy tendencies by starting the 3bet like a monkey with a hand grenade. I guess I need to start making some gradual adjustments.

I'd particularly appreciate if other people can post their own loss rates in bb/100 from the SB and BB so I can get more of an idea how bad my stats are, and also if I can get some advice on calling vs 3bet ranges against typical (say 25% to 30%) button opens. It's not that I can't do the stovework myself, it's more that I'm interested in peoples advice about what kind of hands to 3bet and what to call.

In general it's ok to lose money in the BB as long as you are losing less than the -100bb/100 ante. However you're not making up for it in the other non-blind spots. That's probably a bigger issue than your blind play in itself.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by griffey24

Look at it this way. Your VPIP is pretty much 20% in the BB, so you're defending 20%.
This means 80% of the time you are losing 1bb per hand or 100bb/100.

0.8*(-100)+0.2*x = -47bb/100
x = 165bb/100

This means that when you ARE calling you are running at 165bb/100 (if my math/method is right). So yes it is VERY obvious that you are not defending enough. Like mojo said, your baseline is -100bb/100. You should be playing EVERY hand in the BB that is expected to do better than -100bb/100.

---

Your maths looks entirely correct, and that is downright shocking.

Do you know of any good blind defence study material?

Do you have any suggestion for the kinds of hands to 3bet from the BB vs a LP open, as opposed to what I should be calling with?

Can I treat it like any other position in terms of 3betting with stuff I can't call with? Obviously, if I need to loosen up a ton in the BB, that also suggests though that I can probably call with quite a lot more than I think I can.

The problem then becomes, I feel like if I can call with a lot more than I think, I then have to play OOP postflop, and that is going to sap a fuckton of profitability out of a lot of the hands that I "can" call with (when looking purely at their preflop equity against a loose LP open), so I think I need to be careful not to over-adjust here.

I guess I feel lost here, because I don't really call OOP like ever unless there is a very specific reason to do so, and so I feel pretty clueless where to start.

The danger on the flip-side, is that if I don't think I can call too much because I don't want to have to play postflop OOP, then I need to 3bet more, but again I don't want to overadjust and start spewing, nor end up playing a lot of 3bet pots OOP.

Again, don't look at the hand from the point of view on if its profitable to play postflop. After the hand plays out postflop in the long run is that particular hand >-100bb/100. If it is, then it's playable.

I'd imagine you can probably widen your 3b range to around 10%+, 3betting suited connectors and one gappers. Start by focusing on players that fold a ton of 3bets, and if they call just c/f if you're uncomfortable playing postflop in 3b pots OOP.

Also I've seen those -15bb and -30bb figures you referenced too, but I've never been able to sustain those levels in the long run. I probably suck in the blinds as well though.

OK, so I'm working on some ranges now. BTW it seems you can't add stats in the "Opponents" view in HEM, so I can't get an average BTN or CO steal for the player pool that way, but what I was able to do was create a player alias called "Regs >1000 hands" then add one by one all the players I have a big sample on.

That gave me average CO steal of about 25% and about 35% from the button, which sound reasonable, so I am now working on my default defence ranges based on that.

I really have no idea where to start deciding whether I can play a hand more profitably (or less unprofitably) than -100bb/100, although as Griffey said that is clearly the dividing line as to where it's better just to fold. I guess the only way I can start to use that idea, is to say that if BTN and I just got it in preflop every single time, I would need 49% equity to lose 1bb every time a hand was played, but just using preflop equity like this seems to simplistic. I guess at least it provides a starting point. I know I need to make some adjustment to the equity based on having to sometimes play postflop OOP, but how much? I have no idea how to quantify that.

Let's do a little maths based on the 35% average BTN open from my database.

In a typical 3bet defence, if villain opens 3x on the button, the pot will be 4.5bb and we will risk 10bb to win it, so if we were always bluffing, we'd need villain to fold 69% of the time. That would mean they'd play the top 11% of hands and fold the rest.

If they call more often than 31% of the time, they'd be calling with a wider weaker range so our 3bets for value should make more (or lose less), and if they fold more than 69% of the time we do better by taking it down preflop even if we're bluffing with the best hand a lot. Whether these opposing factors balance each other out, I do not know, nor do I have any idea off the top of my head how to further analyse that.

Let's just give him an 11% continuing range, so as to have somewhere to start from.

Leaving aside any 4bet bluffing, that would give them a continuing range something like [AA-TT, A2s+, KTs+, QTs+, AJo+, KQo]

In reality, they can actually continue a bit wider - again, we're not trying to make money here, we're trying to lose less than -100bb/100.

But it does mean we have a starting point for the value section of our 3bet range from the BB - something like [AA-TT, ATs+, KTs+, QTs+, JTs, KQo, AJo+] has better than 50% equity against the above continuing range.

Any ideas on how much of our total 3bet range from the BB vs a BTN open should comprise bluffs as opposed to our widened value range?

Also, if villain calls a lot when 3bet BTNvBB, we can widen the value range above out even more, probably like any broadway, and maybe any suited ace and a few smaller PP if they call really wide. OTOH, if someone folds their steal attempts at an unusually high frequency to a BB 3bet, we can bluff wider with a more polarised range.

Here's my initial stab at some specific default ranges (all assuming an "average" villain):

3bet for value: [AA-TT, ATs+, KTs+, QTs+, JTs, AJo+, KQo] (118 combos, 9% of hands)
3bet as a bluff: [K2s-K7s, 75s-97s] (36 combos, 2.7% of hands)
Call: [88-99, A2s-A9s, K8s-K9s, T8s-J9s, 65s-T9s, A2o-ATo, KTo-KJo, QTo-QJo, JTo] (248 combos, 18.7% of hands]

So then we'd be playing 30% of hands against a 35% opening range, of those hands we did play 2/3 of the time, we'd call (so with a capped range, comprising hands from 10%-30% of total hands). The other third of the time, we'd 3bet, and when we did 3bet 2/3 of the time it would be for value, and 1/3 of the time as a bluff.

Perhaps I should think about whether rather than capping our calling range, we should polarise it a bit, calling with some relatively strong stuff from the 3bet value range suggested above, like KQo, AJo and AQo to give us some relatively nutted calling hands, but then I feel like we'd be calling too much, so I'd want to put some more 3bet bluffs in the bluffing range, and I wonder if the overall 3bet range would become too bluff heavy.

Any input appreciated.

I don't really agree with the if a hand is <-100bb/100 you shouldn't play it from the BB argument.

If we play hand A from the BB and we win at -80bb/100 and we always fold hand B (-100bb/100) then our average from these two hands is -90bb/100.

If we play A and B from the BB and we win at -50bb/100 w/A and -110bb/100 w/B. Then overall the average of these two hands is -80bb/100.

Which is more +EV?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ImSavy

I don't really agree with the if a hand is <-100bb/100 you shouldn't play it from the BB argument.

If we play hand A from the BB and we win at -80bb/100 and we always fold hand B (-100bb/100) then our average from these two hands is -90bb/100.

If we play A and B from the BB and we win at -50bb/100 w/A and -110bb/100 w/B. Then overall the average of these two hands is -80bb/100.

Which is more +EV?

---

That's a rather misleading comparison.

Keep A the same both times, set A @ -80bb/100 and B @ -110bb/100
Play A, fold B = -90bb/100
Play A and B = -95bb/100

Let's make a hand C that is -90bb/100
Play A, fold C = -90 bb/100
Play A and C = -85 bb/100

It's not a misleading comparison at all, it's proving that just looking at whether a hand is +EV or not is relatively unimportant it's about playing our ranges in the most +EV ways.

Obviously you need to be able to justify all of your decisions in poker and that should be no different as to when we are choosing our ranges and how to play them against different villain types.

This is before taking into account that our skills as a player should be increasing rather rapidly at this point (no offence meant to OP) because there are loads of huge leaks in our game. These changes will have such a huge impact on the profitability of our hands that it seems silly to start picking and choosing hands based on how we are doing with them now.

OK. So are you saying this (to paraphrase):

Whatever hands we can play for greater than -100bb/100 at our current skill level, we should. As we acquire the skills to play more hands at that level, we can include them as well.

I can agree with that.

I'm not assuming we play any specific hand for the same EV against different villains. I'm not even assuming we know what our EV is at any given time to any real accuracy when we're talking about a specific hand vs a specific villain.

I'm just saying that I agree with griffey24's math. Even if it assumes we have knowledge we do not have, it gives us a theoretical guideline around which our estimates can have some reasoned impact on our play.

Just to add a few more random though apropos the last post I made, it made me think about how Savy advised me in another thread to think more clearly about having a plan for 3bet/4bet/5bet spots.

So I thought, given the ranges I gave above, how vulnerable could I be to having my 3bet frequency exploited by someone who 4bets a lot on the BTN, and if someone does 4bet a lot on the button, how light can I stack off?

Ref question 1, if someone starts 4betting a lot, there's no way I want to play 4bet pots OOP, so I'm never going to be calling. So lets assume when faced with a 4bet, I'll either shove or fold.

Let's say he starts 4betting me one time in 4 that I 3bet him.

So if he was opening 35% of hands for a steal, he's going to be 4betting me with 8.75% of hands. Something like [88+, ATs+, KTs+, QTs+, JTs, KQo, AQo+].

If I've got any fold equity after he 4bets, then we'll say he 4bet-folds with [88-99, JTs, QTs+, KTs-KJs] which leaves 6.5% of hands he'll stack off with, and he folds to my shove after 4betting 26% of the time, getting it in the other 74% of the time.

If he 4bets to 22bb, when he 4bet-folds, I win 26.5bb. So my total EV (ignoring the SB and any other dead money, for ease of calculation) is:

EV = (0.26 * 26.5bb) + (0.74 * EQ * 100.5bb) + (0.74 * (1-EQ) * 100bb)

Where EQ is the preflop equity of my hand.

Tidying up, to break even:

0 = (0.26 * 26.5bb) + (0.74 * EQ * 100) - (0.74 * (1-EQ) * 100bb)
0 = 6.89 + 74EQ - 74(1-EQ)
0 = 6.89 + 74EQ - 74 + 74EQ
0 = -67.11 + 148EQ
148EQ = 67.11
EQ = 0.45

I'd need 45% pot equity to shove.

Against his putative stacking-off range of [TT+, ATs+, KQs, KQo, AQo+], I have 45% equity with something like: [88+, A2s+, KQs, KQo, AJo+]

What about if he starts 4betting me one third of the time that I 3bet him?

That gives him 12% of hands, say [99+, A8s+, K9s+, Q9s+, J9s+, T9s, KQo, ATo+].

If he 4bet folds about a quarter of that range again (to keep the required equity at 45% and save redoing the long-ass calculation above) then he continues with something like [TT+, ATs+, KTs+, QTs+, JTs, KQo, AJo+].

then I can stack off with [22-AA, ATs+, KTs+, QTs+, JTs, QJo, KTo+, ATo+].

I'm going to say that again (because it surprised me) - a light 4bettor who 4bets me one third of the time after he opens the button with a typical range and I defend my blind is creating so much dead money that I can stack off with any pair, any suited broadway and almost all unsuited broadways.

To give the opposite, straightforward end of the spectrum, the sample is quite small but in my database, of hands where the BTN has opened and I have 3bet from the blinds, there have been 32 occasions out of 395 when the BTN has then 4bet. So a typical BTN opening 35% of hands is going to click it back 8% of the time when I 3bet him with 3% of total starting hands, or [QQ+, AQs+, AKo].

In my database, of those 395 hands where I 3bet the BB vs a BTN open, 222 times the BTN folded to the 3bet. That's 56% of the time. So his calling range was [3%-23%], something like [66-JJ, A2s-AJs, K7s+, Q8s+, J9s+, T9s, JTo, QTo+, K9o+, A8o+] so (to me at least) a surprisingly wide and weak range.

So he 4bets me 8% of the time, and it's always with a hand he is willing to stack off with (not an unreasonable assumption I think against an unknown or a "typical" player at 25NL)

Let's do an EV calculation, based on his 56% folding frequency when 3bet, and completely ignoring the times he calls and we play postflop by saying that when he does call, we lose our 3bet and just c/f the flop every single time.

EV = (0.56 * 4.5bb) - (0.44 * 10bb) = -1.88bb so worse than folding the BB

So lets do a simplified postflop analysis. I can only be bothered to do this over one street or it'll get unreasonably complex and speculative - the flop pot is 14.5bb

If we pot the flop every time our 3bet is called, we're risking another 14.5bb

If we want to break even vs. just folding the BB, we can set EV=-1bb and see what X makes:

-1 = (0.56 * 4.5bb) - (0.44 * (1-X) * 24.5bb) + (0.44 * X * 14.5bb)
-1 = 2.52 - 10.78 + 10.78X + 6.38X
7.26 = 17.16X
X = 0.42

So if we just potted every flop when called, we'd need 42% folds to break even with just folding the BB.

To get to the -30bb/100 mentioned earlier in the thread (a minimized BB loss-rate), we'd need:

-0.3 = 2.52 - 10.78 + 10.78X + 6.38X
7.96 = 17.16X
X = 0.46

46% folds.

If we bet 10bb instead of potting it, we'd need:

-0.3 = 2.52 - 8.8 + 8.8X + 6.38X
5.98 = 15.18X
X = 0.39

39% folds required.

With the wide, weak calling range identified earlier, that doesn't sound unachievable. Easy to say that when you suck and are losing 47bb/100 from the BB eh?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ImSavy

I don't really agree with the if a hand is <-100bb/100 you shouldn't play it from the BB argument.

If we play hand A from the BB and we win at -80bb/100 and we always fold hand B (-100bb/100) then our average from these two hands is -90bb/100.

If we play A and B from the BB and we win at -50bb/100 w/A and -110bb/100 w/B. Then overall the average of these two hands is -80bb/100.

Which is more +EV?

---

This really doesn't make much sense. Situation number 2 is more +EV but that's irrelevant, because we shouldn't be playing B if it's winning at a rate of -110bb/100.

So you should be asking yourself which situation is more +EV , playing A at -50bb/100 and B at -110bb/100, with an average of -80bb/100.

OR

Playing A at -50bb/100 and NOT playing B at -110bb/100 and instead folding at -100bb/100, with an average of -75bb/100.

In which case it is clearly the second situation, folding B and taking the BB loss.

I agree with the overall idea of thinking about ranges, but I can't think of any situation where playing a hand that is >-100bb/100 would hinder the rest of our ranges so much that we should still fold it? Please give examples of this using real hands/spots.

No that isn't what I should be asking, you seem to have misunderstood the point.

Simple scenario if I only ever play AA I'm going to win playing AA but not very much as people will soon know that I'm only playing AA.

If I add a hand like 45s into my range then I may lose money playing 45s but I will gain more money when I play AA as a result, make sense?. So if I win more playing the AA than I lose playing the 45s (as an average) then clearly playing AA & 45s is better than playing just AA

I'm not saying we should think about getting rid of any hands where we are doing better than -100bb/100, but when taking out hands from our range we need to think about the overall effect it has on our perceived range and how this effects our EV. As this is what is important not whether we are winning with a hand or not.

Have I explained that any better?

Sure no I get your example, and I think that example works perfectly at the extreme case (ie: only playing AA and then adding more hands for action).

I think in this particular spot for OP and for most players, rarely are ppl defending TOO MUCH, to the point where we have to ponder removing hands (and potentially risk value from our good hands) from our defending range. I think in most spots ppl are not defending enough, so we need to be adding more hands that likely fall in that >-100bb/100 but <0bb/100 range.

The only spot I can think of where defending more widely would hurt our previous range would be in some spots where we used to have a stronger range, so we were able to c/c mid pair and take it to showdown, but now villain see's we have a much wider range and starts barreling us and we get blown off hands that we used to win at SD with. (that being said, in that scenario we would also get more action on our good hands, so it's hard to estimate these impacts).

Savy, your example makes sense, but in a blind defence example you are probably talking about a spot that is the difference between defending say 16% compared with defending 18%. Who is going to play differently in these two situations? (assuming they actually have the thousands of hands it would take to know that your range has changed by 2%)

My example is just extreme to get the point across. What you need to be thinking about is how opponents react to the ranges we have and how we should play these ranges.

Looking at stats like this obviously can help find overall leaks but I don't think the information it gives us a lot of the time should be dictating the hands we do and don't play unless something is obviously massively wrong.

Just as an estimate of what impact defending more could have.

Hypothetically, using my math above for Boris' stats, I showed that based on
0.8*(-100)+0.2*x = -47bb/100
x = 165bb/100, so this is his winrate when calling

If we assume that instead he plays the same as above, but instead of folding 10% of those hands he calls 10%, and those 10% he runs at -50bb/100 (which I think is VERY conservative, given the 20% he's playing now is running at 165bb/100)
This results in:
0.7*(-100)+(.2)*(165)+(0.1)*(-50)
=-70+33-5
= -42bb/100

So by adding 10% more hands to the BB calling range, we improve our BB winrate by 5bb/100

Given the distribution of hands played in the blinds to total hands, I think finding more hands to call can increase your overall winrate by at least 1-2bb/100 overall.

Hmm I'm not so sure about all this blind analysis. It kinda seems like an accounting trick. I mean, you have to pay the blinds to play an orbit. It's table rent. They just happen to take it from you when you're in the blinds and credit you at that time with a small discount for entering. But wouldn't it be the same if they took out 1/4 blind from everybody's stack every hand as an ante and used that money for the 1.5 blind starting pot? Doesn't that amount to the same thing? And if they did it that way, would you still want to take every > -100 bb/100 play from the BB for example? Or would you just as well like every > -25 bb/100 play from any position? Or just concentrate on the profitable positions.

IDK this is confusing me. I don't see why we have to make up blind costs, which really are charged for the entire orbit, just when we're SB or BB. Granted that's when they give us the discount to enter but of course that's also the crappiest position at the table. Couldn't you just as easily try to 'make back table rent' from any other position?

I could see it if the discount to play compensated for the bad position but I doubt that it does.

I mean, it's not like you get to play hands from the other positions for free. You have to pay the blinds before you are allowed to play a hand from any position. You're just cheating yourself a little bit if you don't wait for the BB.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by abelardx

Hmm I'm not so sure about all this blind analysis. It kinda seems like an accounting trick. I mean, you have to pay the blinds to play an orbit. It's table rent. They just happen to take it from you when you're in the blinds and credit you at that time with a small discount for entering. But wouldn't it be the same if they took out 1/4 blind from everybody's stack every hand as an ante and used that money for the 1.5 blind starting pot? Doesn't that amount to the same thing? And if they did it that way, would you still want to take every > -100 bb/100 play from the BB for example? Or would you just as well like every > -25 bb/100 play from any position? Or just concentrate on the profitable positions.

IDK this is confusing me. I don't see why we have to make up blind costs, which really are charged for the entire orbit, just when we're SB or BB. Granted that's when they give us the discount to enter but of course that's also the crappiest position at the table. Couldn't you just as easily try to 'make back table rent' from any other position?

I could see it if the discount to play compensated for the bad position but I doubt that it does.

---

If you had to play 0.25bb from every position, instead of paying blinds in the SB/BB, then the baseline for ALL positions would be playing hands more profitable than -25bb/100. (But then the baseline for SB would NOT be -50bb/100 and BB would NOT be -100bb/100, every position baseline would be -25bb/100).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by abelardx

I mean, it's not like you get to play hands from the other positions for free. You have to pay the blinds before you are allowed to play a hand from any position. You're just cheating yourself a little bit if you don't wait for the BB.

---

You most certainly DO get to play the other positions for free. If you are playing any hand that is performing worse than 0bb/100 then you are making a mistake, unless it's to create action on your other hands, which has been suggested previously.

You're viewing the blinds all wrong. Blinds are not a "rent", or a "cover charge" so that you can enter and play the other positions at the table. Blinds are a charge only for those seats, but it just so happens that you rotate seats around the table and are forced to play blinds twice an orbit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by abelardx

But wouldn't it be the same if they took out 1/4 blind from everybody's stack every hand as an ante and used that money for the 1.5 blind starting pot? Doesn't that amount to the same thing? And if they did it that way, would you still want to take every > -100 bb/100 play from the BB for example? Or would you just as well like every > -25 bb/100 play from any position? Or just concentrate on the profitable positions.

---

Well provided the action was kept the same, ie. when you were in the "blind" you were last to act preflop, and first to act postflop, then it would be exactly the same in terms of it being the worst possible position to play each orbit, and you'd still be vulnerable to the button and cutoff beating up on you with a wide range. You'd still expect to lose money from the "blind" in this case, and still expect money to flow towards the button.

If you got to play from the non-blind positions 'for free' then if you just joined a table, and sat down in the cutoff, you should be able to play that hand without double posting, which of course is not the rule. That's telling me that the blinds are a charge to play the orbit and not just a charge to play in the blinds. Otherwise people could just sit out the blinds and save a crap load of money.

But I see your point. It does matter when you get charged the blinds like you said. So if you can make a play that is > -100 bb/100 from the BB, then you should because that's better than folding. In effect that's saying that the discount to enter does compensate for the crappy position for that play.

Similarly making a > -25 bb/100 play from other positions, if still negative, is bad because it's worse than folding. So, for blinds play, 'better than folding' = 'discount makes play profitable'. OK, that makes sense to me now. Thanks guys.

OK, confusion cleared. The blind analysis is really interesting especially what Griffey said about defending more if you're beating folding. That applies to me too. I'm -30 from either blind over the last month but I just started playing again so very small sample.

http://i1304.photobucket.com/albums/...ps17d03ce3.png

I recently had some tilt/sheriff issues that I'm working on. :( But I didn't realize how badly I was doing on the button, probably cuz I mess with people too much in position. I should play more straight-forwardly like I do out of position.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by abelardx

http://i1304.photobucket.com/albums/...ps17d03ce3.png

I recently had some tilt/sheriff issues that I'm working on. :( But I didn't realize how badly I was doing on the button, probably cuz I mess with people too much in position. I should play more straight-forwardly like I do out of position.

---

Is that PT4 you're using there?

abelardx - you're like the opposite of boris haha. You're mega lagging it up.

That's VERY loose from the SB.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cobra_1878

Is that PT4 you're using there?

---

Yes. I believe it's almost exactly equivalent to HM. I like it just fine.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by griffey24

abelardx - you're like the opposite of boris haha. You're mega lagging it up.

That's VERY loose from the SB.

---

I'm sure there's a lot more limping at 5NL than 25NL and I complete a lot with suited or connected cards. I think it's OK if it's multiway. Definitely raising the top pair type starting hands though.

My BB is a little high because of the people who open in the SB too much. Some tags seem to think they're ip in the SB which is pretty funny.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by abelardx

Yes. I believe it's almost exactly equivalent to HM. I like it just fine.



I'm sure there's a lot more limping at 5NL than 25NL and I complete a lot with suited or connected cards. I think it's OK if it's multiway. Definitely raising the top pair type starting hands though.

My BB is a little high because of the people who open in the SB too much. Some tags seem to think they're ip in the SB which is pretty funny.

---

Can you tell me how you got it to show BB/100 when filtering by position, mine shows bb/Hand for some reason?

http://imageshack.com/scaled/large/834/2bkd.png

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cobra_1878

Can you tell me how you got it to show BB/100 when filtering by position, mine shows bb/Hand for some reason?

---

Right click anywhere in the window and then click Configure Report. A window pops up letting you add or delete any statistic you want.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by abelardx

Right click anywhere in the window and then click Configure Report. A window pops up letting you add or delete any statistic you want.

---

Thank you very much!