# Freebie: Studying Poker: Heads-up Small Blind Play - Part 1

- Sit and Go
- SNG
- Heads-up

## Description

Byron continues his "Studying Poker" series with a theory-type presentation style video, on Small Blind Play in Heads-up Sit & Goes. Stay tuned for more top-notch theory from Byron. Showcasing the latest production from ByronJacobs, looking at Sit & Go Small Blind play, observing from the point of view of the short-stack, we see the habits ideally formed to ensure our quality of play is uncompromised when facing a shove or fold situation.

## Tags

Blind Defense Blindbattle push or fold series shorty Theory Video

## Comments (21)

oldest first#21

#20

#19

#18

#17

#16

#15

#14

Thank you

#13

#12

#11

/Johan

#10

It's probably correct to say that Nash strategy is the perfect strategy if and only if the opponent plays Nash.

If the opponent deviates from Nash, then the Nash strategy doesn't take full advantage possible if the stacks are greater than some X. This effect is amplified as the stacks become bigger.

The Nash equilibrium is proven to exist for stacks smaller than X blinds. I have my doubts that Nash equilibria even exist (in the precise sense) when we are talking about 12BB (precisely because calling/minraising is possible). Nash eqiuilibria clearly does not exist for, say, 25BB.

I may remember things incorrectly, but the pure equilibria exist for stacks smaller than something like only 6 BB. Tables for bigger stacks are just very good approximations to a very good strategy against random players. The tables are calculated GIVEN that calls/minraises are nono.

Actual exact tables are impossible to produce due to the fact that they begin to depend on your opponent style. So, yes, there is certainly even room for improvement - even against somebody plaing according to the tables (which aren't truly Nash because of the limp/minraise effect)

Question: What is X for which pure Nash equilibria exist when stacks < X? An answer, preferably with a link, is highly appreciated.

Besides, there is nothing that says that EV = 0 in any of the blinds. That would be extremely unlikely if you think about it. The EV net sum over the two blinds, of course is exacly 0, regarldless of stacks.

/Johan

#9

#8

The point of the calculation is not so much to point this out as to create a baseline expectation (in terms of EV) so we can examine the EV of other lines of play. If we don't know the exact EV of playing Nash (specifically from the small blind - on one hand), then discussing alternative lines is just guesswork. The calculation also sets up a model which will be developed in parts 2 and 3.

#7

For me, your calculation is a non sens: you calculate ranges to get the ev=0 point, draw tables with that, and then you make a very approximative ev calculation to said that this point is not exactly 0 ev but slightly -ev. For me, I have the feeling that you tries to say that playing nash 12BB deep against someone playing nash is -EV. So do you think that both player are playing a -ev game (as the other play play like us, so he has to be -ev too)??? And that maybe the cards or a poker god are stealing the global ev lost? Obviously, the hand after your push, your opponent playing nash like you will be in SB facing the same delta ev as you've faced the hand before, so anyway the global ev will be exactly 0 if you got the same tables (while I'll agree, it's not a reason to take a -ev spot if you can avoid it).

To get to your point, all you had to say was: "playing Nash against someone playing nash will never give you an edge, you'll both be break even. As playing nash is unexploitable, you can't play PoF to get an edge against that kind of player. Let's see how to play min raise / limp strategy to get an edge against those players. That method will be especialy +ev if the player doesn't adapt his game to your."

I think that this would have been simpler, bring you to the same point and avoid this 8 minute long calculation with no point that you've made your video with.

#6

6BB -> 6.03BB

8BB -> 7.99BB

10BB -> 9.95BB

12BB -> 11.91BB

14BB -> 13.88BB

16BB -> 15.75BB

Clearly as the stack size increases Nash becomes weaker with 8BB being the equilibrium point. This creates room to improve over Nash at effective stack sizes above 8BB. I chose 12BB for the video because at 10BB the gains - although clear - are quite marginal. At 12BB it is very clear that there is sufficient room to improve quite substantially over Nash and also to further outplay opponents who don't adapt. How this works will be seen in parts 2 and 3.

#5

Basically since playing nash is an equilibrium, playing Nash against someone that use Nash calling range is EV0, so if we want to have an edge, we can't stick to a push or fold strategy ... pretty obvious.

I'm hoping than the other parts will have more interesting content, this one sounds like a (too) long introduction.

#4

#3

#2

Looking forward to parts II & III.

/Johan

#1

Don't forget to leave your thoughts & Feedback, and a special thanks to Byron for the awesome video!