Studying Poker: Heads-up Small Blind Play - Part 2

• Sit and Go
• SNG

Free membership

Description

Byron continues his "Studying Poker" series with the second in a line of theory-type presentations, 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

• #1

Enjoy the second part for Byron and don't forget to leave your thoughts & feedback!
• #2

Its a nice video, if you re working on this topic.
@Byron: Just add me in the Com tool if ur interested in the Ranges of the Nash Equilibrium which ive created with Matlab for the Raise/Fold->Push/Fold->Call/Fold Game for HU.
It will appear in the next month in my HU Chapter in the Book 'Online Poker' by Stephan Kalhamer
• #3

thanks for the video byron, looking forward for the next part.

@femtom, do you also explain how you calculated that ranges in your chapter?
• #4

@chuckey, i would like to go more into detail but that would be too advanced for most readers. It is focused on application and gives examples how to use the provided charts, which looks like the charts on holdemresources.net.
It is just the evolution of the Jam-or-Fold Game because the Jam is not effective with Stacks over 7.8BB.
And it will be shown that the Minraise Game is more effective and has a better payoff for the SB.
• #5

#2 #4 Hi Femtom, I'd really like to see that stuff as my conclusion here (it'll be clearer after part 3) is that the min-raise game gives a very clear improvement whilst also creating opportunities to exploit. I know I'm not exactly the first person to spot this but I think the model here is interesting and flexible for analysis of different ranges.

Do you have any thoughts on limping <12BB? I know some players like these ROFL ranges but it's unclear to me that you can introduce a (wide) limping range successfully (esp below about 10BB) as you're just too vulnerable to jams. If you beef up your limp range then it seems to me you give up too much equity with your jam/mr-call range.
• #6

@Femtom: Hi. A bit interested in what you've done in matlab, sent you a friend request on the community if you would like to talk a bit.

@Byron. Good video for a general introduction to the method. Looking forward to how you will expand further. Keep up the good work!
• #7

• #8

@ 17:55

i think i found a major mistake:

our minraise call range is way to small, it can be exploitet easily. but thats not my point.

u mentioned in the chart, we need a range that has 41.7% vs his shoving range. but since u delete the A7 and lower + 77 and lower the results coming out are not optimal. we have 55% equity now if we call, which seems to be nice, but is way to much. because, as u mentionen, we only need ~42%. so we can add way more hands into our minraise call range fe K7s, Q9s, QTo etc.

but maybe i am stupid and overlook something, maybe u can clear that up for me byron.
• #9

#8 Hi eslchr1s, thanks for the feedback.

When we use the 41.7% that's to find the individual hands that have at least this equity against his push range. The 55% equity is what is generated by this ENTIRE range of hands (e.g. it includes AA, KK etc which have much greater equity). We don't include the weaker hands because individually they are -EV for us to call with.

I agree that the minraise call range is too small but I mention this early on. Also, in video 3, I will analyse how we can expand this range to further exploit a non-optimal response from the villain.

Finally - sure we are exploitable. But if you do not allow yourself to become exploitable you can never find the most profitable plays against weaker players. My starting point for the analysis in this series is to exploit what players typically do from the BB at these stack sizes and to exploit this tendency. Video 3 will also discuss what happens when they adapt and how we can further adjust our ranges in response.
• #10

ok cool, thanks
• #11

One thing I do not like in the described minraising range is that we assume that the villain is more likely to flat us OOP with 12 BB than to reshove - I think the latter is much more common. It is really a waste of equity to include suited connectors in the minraise/folding range against most opponents (given that imo they are more likely to shove or fold.) So against such villains I would tend to shove hands with good equity when called and raise fold some high/low cards for blocking effect . Also I think A7/A8 are good enough to be in our inducing range.
• #12

#11 Hi Gavron, In part 3 we start to look at different villain types - including ones who will shove pretty wide over our minraise. Totally agree about suited connectors: hands such as J9s will in general play much better in the jam range than the bet/call or bet/fold ranges. A-7, A-8 I think are kind of borderline as typical villain flatting hands are stuff like Q-9, J-10 etc and these play well post-flop vs our A7/A8. Obviously it will depend on your perception of the villain's ranges. The jam range used in the video is obviously on the tight side but the purpose of the series is not to provide definitive answers, but to show that this strategy is certainly effective and to provide a suggested model for further investigation.

Personally I'd jam (as default) something like 22-77, A8+, K2-K8s, K4-K8/9o plus some suited/connecting stuff, T9o 98s etc. I didn't use these ranges in the video as I was concerned it would get over-complicated.
• #13

I find an error. He said, we folding 27% but he dont calculate the shoving range out