Reversing the initiative in a hand

Following suit with meeloche, feel free to comment.


Reversing the initiative in a hand (when is this appropriate and why is it valuable)

First I think its important to define what initiative is, and how it varies.

Player A open raises preflop, and Player B calls in position. Player A has the initiative. In order to maintain the initiative, Player A must bet. If he checks he has lost initiative and Player B gains it. Basically any time the flow of aggression in a hand is in favor of one player, that player is said to have the initiative. Whenever this flow is broken, initiative reverses.

It's also important to note that initiative comes in varying strengths.

Examples of strong initiative:

-HU pot on flop AA7 rainbow, Preflop raisor
-basically any 3-bet pot, Preflop 3-bettor
-any time there’s a bet-raise-flatcall on the flop or turn, on the next street the raisor has strong initiative

Examples of weak initiative:

-multiway pot 9s8s4d, preflop raisor
-Tag A opens button, Tag B 3-bets BB, A calls, flop AJx rainbow and Tag B checks. Tag A has weak initiative.
-limped pot, checks to player last to act.

In general a player's initiative is stronger as his range is stronger, and/or as their opponent range is weaker. See ISF theorem. Obviously it becomes much easier to reverse the initiative when it is weak. Another way of looking at it would be to estimate the likelihood of a player to use his initiative. The less this is, the weaker it is.

Series of possible initiative reversals and why they are good:

Note: For simplicity assume HU pots in the following examples.

1) Light 3-betting preflop

People who open very wide ranges have weak initiative, and you should reverse the initiative with hands that aren't good enough to play without the initiative, which in the end widens the range of profitable hands you play against the opener. Additionally, its pretty difficult to reverse the initiative of a 3-bet preflop. 4-bet bluffing is really high variance and many aren't willing to bother with it.

2) Check-raising the flop

Just like how people open exploitably wide ranges preflop, there are also people who continuation bet way too much. Against them you should of course be capitalizing by check raising them often with bluffs. You should also be checkraising with decent hands like TPGK. This will widen your legitimate range of value, thereby fortifying your initiative and making your checkraising range very tough to play against. Just like with 4-betting, most players aren't willing to 3-bet bluff on the flop.

Note: 1) and 2) are in nearly direct opposition. I find myself 3-betting far less vs. people who have really exploitable c-bet tendencies.

3) Leading the flop

This is one of the simplest and most effective ways of reversing initiative. Whether value or bluff, leading works best in situations where villain isn't expected to bet as often (i.e. when his initiative is at its weakest). Leading allows you to give yourself a chance to win the pot cheaply, while denying villain the option of pot-controlling some of the weaker hands in his range. Best of all, it represents a very credible range, giving you the option of barreling and making villain's life generally difficult.

4) C/c and lead turn

Similar to 3), this works best when you expect the preflop raisor to often check behind the turn. You may have a read that a nitty player will bet 99 on a 8xx flop, but then auto-check behind a blank turn for pot control. Vs this player you would want to c/c lead with a hand like JJ. This play is also good when the turn card strengthens your range, or weakens villain's.

5) Raising flop or turn IP

Lastly, it can be valuable to raise villain's c-bets ip. Obviously with a nut hand or a bluff you will be doing this often, but more interestingly it can be good to do this with medium strength hands or draws, in order to show down or get a free card on the next street, respectively. In my opinion this reversal is a bit weaker than the OOP counterpart, due to the fact that its harder to have a credible range of value when in position.



When is it more appropriate to play without the initiative?

-When your hand has high implied odds. (i.e. coldcalling with 44 or 87s preflop, calling a cbet with 86 on 973 board)

-When your hand is good but not nut. (i.e. coldcalling with ATs preflop, calling a double barrel with KQ on Qd8d6s2h)

-When your plan involves taking away the initiative at a more opportune time. (i.e. floating, slowplaying)

Really solid post. I pretty much agree with all of it.

The only thing I would add is another great time to play without the initiative is when playing against over aggro spewtards who will bluff too much. There is no point in reversing the initiative vs them in a lot of spots with your value range cause it will only slow down their bluffs.

Originally Posted by Renton

2) Check-raising the flop

Just like how people open exploitably wide ranges preflop, there are also people who continuation bet way too much. Against them you should of course be capitalizing by check raising them often with bluffs. You should also be checkraising with decent hands like TPGK. This will widen your legitimate range of value, thereby fortifying your initiative and making your checkraising range very tough to play against

First off, 5 spades. Very well written. So thanks for the contribution once again.

Second, I kinda stumble over the logic in the above quote. I mean I obviously realize that when individuals cbet too often, it is very profitable to c/r often with bluffs. However, the thing that I get caught up on is when you advise doing this with hands like TPGK. Maybe when you stated to assume HU pots, you mean in a much looser HU game. But it seems I rarely find spots when I feel comfortable check/raising a flop with a hand like KQ on Kh9s2h flop, or something similar.

It seems to me that just because he is cbetting a very wide range, this doesn't necessarily change his bet/calling range, or stackoff range (unless he's thinking on the level that we are going to be check/raise bluffing often). Therefore, it seems (at least it's my impression in my FR games), that semi-marginal hands like TPGK perform better without the initiative, which essentially allows villain to either bluff or bet worse.

if u check raise often enough as bluffs vs thinking opposition, you'll have no problem checkraise/stacking with AQ on Qxx

Originally Posted by Renton

if u check raise often enough as bluffs vs thinking opposition, you'll have no problem checkraise/stacking with AQ on Qxx

Okay so this kinda does require some sort of dynamic and villains actually considering your range, and how you might be exploiting them.

but mainly, in order to check raise often as bluffs, you need to be checkraising often for value as well, and sets/2pair doesn't provide enough combos for "often"

Actually thats pretty eye opening Renton. A very useful rundown and great followup with Stack's question.

Originally Posted by XxStacksxX

Originally Posted by Renton

if u check raise often enough as bluffs vs thinking opposition, you'll have no problem checkraise/stacking with AQ on Qxx

Okay so this kinda does require some sort of dynamic and villains actually considering your range, and how you might be exploiting them.

yeah, and just because someone isn't a good player doesn't mean they aren't doing exactly that, at least on a subconscious level. They are definitely paying attn to how much u are shitting on them.

Yeah this answer was the best one imo, really solid stuff.

Yeah I want to give respect to this one once again. I think I finally get ISF theorem after reading this.

Very good post!

Could you please go more detail on the reasons to give up the initiative intentionally?

The one time that comes to mind for me is against aggressive opponents who like to float. I cbet with my nut/committed hands then check the turn after getting flatted on the flop. I seem to have a lot of success getting it all in by doing this against such opponents.

Thanks!

O

Good post. Thought it was concise, clear and direct.

Originally Posted by minSim

Yeah I want to give respect to this one once again. I think I finally get ISF theorem after reading this.

I doubt ISF theorem really makes sense to anyone until they see examples. It hit me like lightning hitting Saul in BC the other day because of a discussion similar to the 'c/r bluffing players who cbet too much' section of Renton's post here.

Great post, Renton.