Blind Battles in FL Holdem

  • Fixed-Limit
  • FL
  • Shorthanded
(11 Votes) 7153


Free membership

Join now


Byron discusses blind battles in FLHE, giving theoretical discussion and practical examples.


Blind Defense Blindbattle practical thematic video

Comments (9)

newest first
  • fitzinator18


    Enjoy the latest FLHE video from Byron!

    As always feedback and suggestions are appreciated!
  • HariRadovan


    Hi Byron, this is a very cool video. I really like that you develop new concepts that always give me something to think about.

    To your new idea: limping from the small blind is definitely an option. I would consider this against certain opponents with certain hands but I would not do it with my whole range. There are 2 problems I see:
    Problem 1: by limping you give up the opportunity to win the pot preflop. This is bad because those pots are the only rake-free pots one can win.
    Problem 2: you give up the initiative. When you come in with a raise you play the hand mostly with the initiative. Even if your opponent 3-bets you have the option to cap and bet out first on the flop. I think this is a big advantage especially in the blind-battle.
    I think that having the initiative is most important: a) when you are heads-up b) when you are out-of-position and c) when weak hand-ranges collide. All three points are given when you are the SB in the blindbattle. So having the initiative is crucial in that situation.
  • ByronJacobs


    Hi Hari, Thx for the feedback.
    Problem 1) Agree completely. Definite drawback.
    Problem 2) I see what you mean but this is less clear - the initiative is a slippery concept. It's definitely useful against weaker players (who usually just fold too much) but not so much against tougher villains. They will have weapons that will cause you trouble such as floating the flop with air, which the weaker players won't.
    You don't really give up the initiative because if they c/b you can lead the flop and if they raise pre-flop you will have a re-raise range. Also, even if the pre-flop action is limp / raise / call, you might still decide to donk certain flops. For example let's say you have quite a weak draw on the flop, e.g. 7-9 on a 10-J-4 flop. Now maybe a donk can be good since check/call (weak) and check/raise (overplaying IMO) are unattractive. When you donk and he just calls this might give you enough info to three barrel on blanks since he's clearly not that strong (unless he's trapping).
  • ByronJacobs


    I would say definitely don't limp against weak players and definitely don't in a structure which is less then 50/50 (e.g. 1-3 or 2-5). However, at 15-30 with 10-15 blinds against decent opposition I feel sure it is a viable option.
  • HariRadovan


    Hi Byron, thx for your answer.
    The 15-30 level is very special and here your new idea might in fact be optimal against strong tricky opponents (unfortunately I don't play this level :-))
    On this level you get 5:1 for completing in the SB so I think every hand is playable here, even absolute junk. However there is no shame in completing (getting 5:1 against a random hand) and then folding to a raise (getting only 3:1 against a stronger-than-average range) if you have a very weak hand. Because open-folding any hand is a mistake IMO you also have to complete strong hands to balance all the times you complete with a weak hand. So a very good idea indeed on that special level where you want to play every hand in the SB 1st in!

    I thought about how results will change by using this new approach on the 15-30-limit.
    Here is my prediction is:
    by completing every hand from the SB 1) your weaker hands will become less unprofitable (because your range is stronger when you complete every hand and not just the weak ones allowing you to steal more pots postflop) while
    2) your stronger hands will become less profitable (because the limped pots will be smaller on average which hurts your strong hands).
    Because there are more weak than strong hands the overall result of using this limping-approach should be positive.
    So very interesting idea, especially for the 10-15-blind-structure! Hope to hear what experiences players make with it in practice.
  • kavboj84


    Hey Byron,

    I wonder why do you tend to raise tighter generally from the SB as the average recommendation. It seems to be ok with a 1/3 blind structure, but according to your calculations with a 1/2 or a 10/15 structure you have to be successful in at least 42% and 44%, and solely on equity approach that is the top 70-70% of your hands against a random range.

    Also to the limping stuff: dont you think you donate value to the BB by doing so ? You give three freecards for the weak part of his range, and get action only from the stronger one.
  • kavboj84


    sorry I wanted to write 70-75%
  • ByronJacobs


    Hi kavboj, If you're playing a fish it's fine to raise very wide - but a strong player, playing IP all four streets, should crush you when your range is too wide. They won't just play FOF on the flop. They'll semi-bluff, bluff and float and you'll endlessly be put in situations where you will make mistakes. Trying to get value from highly marginal hands playing a tiny pot with a big rake against a tough player OOP on all four streets is impossible. The equity situation is not so important because they will not allow you to realise that equity. A fish will - so against a fish it's ok to raise wide.
  • kavboj84


    thanks for your answer. What about my question about the SB open limp strategy ?