Tried to defend my BB

DeadliftsDeadlifts Red Chipper Posts: 32 ✭✭
One of the things I'm trying to do is defend my BB more, however I'm having trouble with the range that I should be flatting with. CORE states to open with about 36% of hands in SB, but doesn't state anything about BB specifically. So as a result, currently I am flatting with a bit less than what I flat with on the BTN (roughly 39% of hands) and only 3betting or opening with about 6.5% of hands (66+/AQ+). Regarding this hand, I'm looking to see if the fold was too nitty, or if I was correct in getting away:

Game: 100NL 6max
Hero: BB, $99.50 :Qd :8d
Villain: BTN: $74.64

Preflop: Folds to villain, villain opens 2x, SB folds, hero calls
Pot: $4

Flop: :Jc :8s :4h
Hero checks, villain bets 1/2 pot, hero calls
In my experience at these tables, the player pool plays straightforward postflop, they open preflop with some very wide ranges if not in EP, and their bet sizing typically gives away their bluffs, or turn their cards face-up. I called this cbet putting villain on J7s+, 22--99, Q8s/o+, K3s+ K9o+, 54s--910s. Most of which crush me; but called in this spot to see the turn.

Turn: :3d
Hero checks, villain checks

River: :Ts
Hero checks, villain bets pot, hero folds, villain shows :9c :9d

At first glance someone new like myself would look at this and say "Yeah, pretty sraightforward fold here" but I want to make sure I didn't potentially leave money on the table, or if I perhaps could have defended my BB by making a squeeze play preflop; thoughts?

Comments

  • persuadeopersuadeo Red Chipper, Table Captain Posts: 3,519 ✭✭✭✭✭
    So as a result, currently I am flatting with a bit less than what I flat with on the BTN (roughly 39% of hands)

    That is a hell of a wide button flatting range!
  • moishetreatsmoishetreats Red Chipper Posts: 1,714 ✭✭✭✭
    Question (for thought and not as a critique): Why do you want to defend the big blind more?

    Once you begin to articulate that answer, then the question of whether Q8s should be part of that defense range becomes obviated.
  • DeadliftsDeadlifts Red Chipper Posts: 32 ✭✭
    edited October 8
    @persuadeo

    CORE states that opening on the BTN with 48% of hands is recommended at 6max which is all I play. Since I haven't started level II yet (perhaps the preflop section at this level will expound), I go off of what I have learned so far holistically and deduce from there

    @moishetreats

    Honestly, and I know this is the wrong answer, but I am defending my BB because that is what I have collectively gathered through multiple sources of information. The popular "10 years ago we would be defending our BB with a very tight range, but now we defend very wide" type adage if you may. The Q8 comes from an article from Upswing that was written for defending the BB position. In the article, the author mentioned in passing that not defending your BB with a hand like Q7o is ludicrous. I may have not started playing exactly Q7o, but I did take that particular hand and made inferences around it concerning what hands I should flat with. Hence, my choosing to flat a min-raise with Q8s.

    Obviously in theory I can have all of this wrong here. I'm looking to learn from my mistakes before I take them further.
  • TheGameKatTheGameKat Posts: 1,104 -
    Apologies if this is obvious, but BB defense is fairly sensitive to raise size. I guess online that is sufficiently standardized it's easy to incorporate, but for live players to start defending wide against 5x opens would be a poor idea. Contrariwise if it's the SB who opens the BB defense can get wider.
    Moderation In Moderation
  • persuadeopersuadeo Red Chipper, Table Captain Posts: 3,519 ✭✭✭✭✭
    ok, no problem, now I understand. Flatting does not equal opening.
  • jeffncjeffnc Red Chipper Posts: 4,240 ✭✭✭✭✭
    I wish the concept of "blind defense" would go away. Really there is no such thing - your blind money is gone and there is only a pot. (If this were really a valid concept, then we should also be reading about "ante defense".) There is only a discount on calling, which affects pot odds differently than other positions, and a positional disadvantage (except against the SB obviuosly). These are the issues, not "defense". But I know blind defense is in common usage.
  • DeadliftsDeadlifts Red Chipper Posts: 32 ✭✭
    edited October 9
    @jeffnc

    Makes sense, I can't find the exact article with a quick search; but the premise essentially was "in 2018 we need to realize that we are getting such a sick price to call the attempted steals from the BTN or CO" I took that paraphrased excerpt, and understood it as "If the BTN or CO attempts to steal the blinds, they are most likely doing so, with a wide range due to their position; so it potentially makes sense to defend the BB position with maybe not an equal, but perhaps comparable range"

    My understanding @persuadeo resulted in me flatting that "comparable but not equal" range and only 3betting a tight 6% range from the BB. Basically, with what I've gathered so far in my collective research, is to start playing a wider range in the BB (at least wider than 6%). How wide, I'm personally not sure on this, but it's a start point that I felt may have been valid.

    @TheGameKat

    To your point, the one thing the CORE program has taught me is, when we're in the BB, and it folds to SB whom completes, raise.
  • DeadliftsDeadlifts Red Chipper Posts: 32 ✭✭
    Mind you, this is only concerning when the BTN or CO attempts to steal, to the point of a post I literally just saw on 2+2 regarding this; I would never defend my BB against a UTG open with such a wide range etc.
  • jeffncjeffnc Red Chipper Posts: 4,240 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited October 9
    Deadlifts wrote: »
    Makes sense, I can't find the exact article with a quick search; but the premise essentially was "in 2018 we need to realize that we are getting such a sick price to call the attempted steals from the BTN or CO"

    Yes, well that gets to the real issue though, which is the price to call, i.e. pot odds. This comes up a lot in tournament situations, especially with the trend toward lower raise sizes, and especially with antes in play.

    Let's say the blinds are 100/200 with 25 antes at a 9 handed table with you in the big blind. There is 525 in the pot. Now the cutoff raises to 425 and there is 950 in the pot and 225 to call, or 4.2:1 odds (that translates to about 19% equity required). That is indeed a "sick price". You can call with a huge range because it's rare for any hand to have that big an equity advantage. (playability notwithstanding). But my point is you're not "defending" anything, other than perhaps the pot itself, but that is true at any position on the table.
  • jeffncjeffnc Red Chipper Posts: 4,240 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Deadlifts wrote: »
    Mind you, this is only concerning when the BTN or CO attempts to steal, to the point of a post I literally just saw on 2+2 regarding this; I would never defend my BB against a UTG open with such a wide range etc.

    Yes understood. I don't want to derail the thread with my rant. I'm just saying it's about range vs. range and price to call (all of which you've mentioned), not "defense" per se.
  • DeadliftsDeadlifts Red Chipper Posts: 32 ✭✭
    @jeffnc

    Excellent points, that makes more sense as you broke it down, especially to the point about the fact that our money is gone with the blinds, we aren't defending here, rather than playing an EP range vs other ranges etc.
  • AceFromSpaceKKAceFromSpaceKK Red Chipper Posts: 214 ✭✭
    edited October 9
    jeffnc wrote: »
    "ante defense"

    I want this as my nickname online on all sites
  • moishetreatsmoishetreats Red Chipper Posts: 1,714 ✭✭✭✭
    @Deadlifts: I think that @jeffnc explained it pretty well! :)

    I'll supplement his comments. What is the strategic and/or +EV value in "defending your blinds". V wants to 2x your BB and steal your BB from time to time? Fine. Why am I going to throw in two more BB just to be unaware and OOP only to fold later, losing more? That's why "defending your blinds" is false concept.

    Instead, the question is about recognizing whether or not BUT is taking advantage of being checked to too often and the blinds over-folding. If so, then it might be the case that applying pressure by 3betting pre-flop or by showing aggression post-flop could end up winning you some valuable coin.

    But, this is NOT a defending-the-blind issue. Rather, it's a function -- like everything -- of looking to exploit an opponent's tendencies.

    So, why are you choosing to call against this BUT with a wider range? Why are you calling and not raising? How can you win the hand(s) post-flop against this BUT given your wider pre-flop calling range? If and when you have concrete answers to those questions, then you can use your BB position to counter BUT's steal attempts (if that's what they are).

    Finally, you ask which hands fall into your expanded call range and which hands fall into your expanded 3bet range -- and then you'll know what to do with Q8s and, more importantly, WHY you're doing it.
  • DeadliftsDeadlifts Red Chipper Posts: 32 ✭✭
    @moishetreats

    Your response has very little to no fat in it; everything you said makes sense which is great. Obviously regarding myself in this situation; I fell into the trap of reading something, taking it to heart, and trying to play off of said advice based on whatever tools I had/have at the time. So what I read or understood through your response was:

    It's not necessarily a "defending our blinds" issue, but rather exploiting weaker players' tendencies in spots where it would make the most sense. This is not blanketed, as table dynamics change, so picking our spots to 3bet, or put forth any aggression OOP relies heavily on the actual players involved and their ranges/frequencies (as should any decision). So as a result, if we are to be active in the BB, it would make sense to ultimately have a plan when facing aggression, and or generating our own.
  • Adam WheelerAdam Wheeler Red Chipper Posts: 2,633 ✭✭✭✭
    edited October 9
    jeffnc wrote: »
    I wish the concept of "blind defense" would go away. Really there is no such thing - your blind money is gone and there is only a pot. (If this were really a valid concept, then we should also be reading about "ante defense".) There is only a discount on calling, which affects pot odds differently than other positions, and a positional disadvantage (except against the SB obviuosly). These are the issues, not "defense". But I know blind defense is in common usage.

    Yeah of course, you should wait to get dealt AA before playing a hand then you'll see if blind defence is a ''no such thing''.

    You're nor defending your blinds but a context, a formation, an unfavourable situation.
  • Adam WheelerAdam Wheeler Red Chipper Posts: 2,633 ✭✭✭✭
    At higher stakes a 6BB/100 wining rate is extremely good. It should helps put things in perspective.
  • jeffncjeffnc Red Chipper Posts: 4,240 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Yeah of course, you should wait to get dealt AA before playing a hand then you'll see if blind defence is a ''no such thing''.

    If I understand you right, you're talking about the cost per orbit of playing poker, which means if you play too tightly the cost of paying the blinds will eat you up. This is not defending your big blind per se, this is defending the blinds in the sense of defending the cost per orbit of SB+BB. That cost can be "defended" by simply playing enough hands, but it definitely doesn't mean you have to play your BB - you can play enough hands from whatever position you like.

  • DeadliftsDeadlifts Red Chipper Posts: 32 ✭✭
    @jeffnc

    Sounds like we are evaluating our performance at the table holistically here, and if so, then looking at our performance in the blinds can potentially be a leak of some sort, but is certainly not going to be the end all be all reason we have a losing bb/100 stat.
  • persuadeopersuadeo Red Chipper, Table Captain Posts: 3,519 ✭✭✭✭✭
    The idea comes from more advanced theory and when watered down, won't make as much sense or even be likely to be misapplied.

    In other words, you can go ahead and take the defense out of the BB, but you can't take the BB out of the defense.
  • Adam WheelerAdam Wheeler Red Chipper Posts: 2,633 ✭✭✭✭
    jeffnc wrote: »
    If I understand you right, you're talking about the cost per orbit of playing poker, which means if you play too tightly the cost of paying the blinds will eat you up. This is not defending your big blind per se, this is defending the blinds in the sense of defending the cost per orbit of SB+BB.
    You're nor defending your blinds but a context, a formation, an unfavourable situation.

    I thought this was pretty clear no?
  • jeffncjeffnc Red Chipper Posts: 4,240 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Not really. "Yeah of course, you should wait to get dealt AA before playing a hand then you'll see if blind defence is a ''no such thing''." Sounded like sarcasm.
  • Adam WheelerAdam Wheeler Red Chipper Posts: 2,633 ✭✭✭✭
    Yeah but that's not the sentence i quoted.
  • Adam WheelerAdam Wheeler Red Chipper Posts: 2,633 ✭✭✭✭
    edited October 9
    The simple point is that in order to gain in terms of win rate, BB/100, simply opening a wider range from CO to SB should easily increase your win rate versus passive players and all those little blinds here and there add up at the end of the week or the month or the year etc. and this will compose, like it or not, a good portion of your profit at NLHE. So yeah, the blinds matter even if the money is not yours anymore once it is posted. Defending the position exist, it is real when you know players are trying to make you fold in order to pick up the blinds uncontested. Notice that "uncontested" is the real key word here, because since you pointed out the money is not yours anymore, well it is everybody's money. Hence when you build a response for that, for players who are trying to steal the blinds, well...you're defending the blinds. The blinds being the position you are in which translate to ''being in the blinds''. I don't know why we shouldn't call this ''defending''?
  • Adam WheelerAdam Wheeler Red Chipper Posts: 2,633 ✭✭✭✭
    You could say in fact that stealing the blinds is probably the first real exploitative strategy that every poker players will learn at first. Then obviously there is more then just stealing the blinds once you are facing opponents that are reluctant to let them go uncontested. Then the exploits will come from another decision point in the game tree which is closer to showdown.
  • DeadliftsDeadlifts Red Chipper Posts: 32 ✭✭
    @Adam Wheeler

    Jonathan Little always states to "defend your blinds intelligently" which I feel coincides with the messages on this thread, but in a different manner. I agree that defending the blinds is definitely one of the first "exploitative" moves that newer players today at least are learning early on. However, much to the point of the others on here, is that it's more than just playing any 2 cards, but more about intelligently playing the blind positions, to maximize profit; which at that point we can call it what we want, but at the end of the day we are playing to maximize profit all around
  • Adam WheelerAdam Wheeler Red Chipper Posts: 2,633 ✭✭✭✭
    edited October 10
    Deadlifts wrote: »
    I agree that defending the blinds is definitely one of the first "exploitative" moves that newer players today at least are learning early on.

    That's not what i said. You seem to be confused about some poker terms.

    I said stealing the blinds is most likely the first exploitative strategy that every beginners learn at first.

    Also you stated in your OG post
    Deadlifts wrote: »
    So as a result, currently I am flatting with a bit less than what I flat with on the BTN (roughly 39% of hands)
    that your flatting near 39% on the BU which is a huge leak. There is surely something that needs clarification for your understanding of that concept.

    BU should be the position where you 3B the most, not where you flat the most. In fact your flatting range on the BU should be very narrow. Specially in high rake environment.
  • persuadeopersuadeo Red Chipper, Table Captain Posts: 3,519 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited October 10
    This is exactly my point from above. "Defense" is a poker theory concept in which one player prevents another player from taking more than his share of his pot equity in any one hand. So it is the opposite of exploitative.

    Without understanding this, it can't be utilized properly and i would suggest viewing your blinds through the lens jeff provided.
  • DeadliftsDeadlifts Red Chipper Posts: 32 ✭✭
    @Adam Wheeler

    No confusion actually, just me mis-reading, so you're correct in that stealing the blinds are in fact one of the first "moves" players learn whom are gearing up for an exploitative play-style. Also, my statement that you quoted is sorely convoluted and that is my fault. What I was stating was, that I flat from BB a comparable range that I open with on the BU in 6max games. So essentially I open on BU with about 48% of hands as the CORE program on here suggests. Since, the CORE program hasn't yet touched on blind play; I made an inference from what I've gathered from other sources (regarding how to "defend your blinds") on what I should be flatting with in the BB position, when there is an attempted steal from BU/CO. Again, this is only when I find myself in either a blind vs blind situation, or an attempted steal from LP. If there was say, an open from UTG, this all goes out the window, and I'm either flatting or 3betting with 6.5% of hands (66+/AQ+) and so on.

    @persuadeo

    I definitely found the Jeff's advice valuable aside from your own, and will proceed accordingly
  • jeffncjeffnc Red Chipper Posts: 4,240 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Hence when you build a response for that, for players who are trying to steal the blinds, well...you're defending the blinds. The blinds being the position you are in which translate to ''being in the blinds''. I don't know why we shouldn't call this ''defending''?

    You can call it defending but to me it's misleading to call it defending your big blind, because most people interpret that as a dollar amount. Otherwise it would be called "defending from the big blind". That's more accurate since you can also defend from UTG, and the UTG player has as much right to his equity share in the pot (i.e. the blinds at that point) as anyone else. But I've never heard anyone say UTG is defending the big blind.

    Your share of the pot certainly becomes more focused when you're last to act and a late position raise represents a high probability of a steal, i.e. a large range including weak hands. Of course once someone raises, the pot comprises more than just the blinds. So while a successful steal can only win the blinds, BB as the last-to-act player now has more to defend than that. The big blind's equity share will always be from a larger pot than the stealer's (on average), since if the BB folds the pot can be no larger than the blinds. The only way the BB can win (merely) the blinds is if he gets a pass, and there is no "defense" when no one challenges/attacks by raising. So technically it's not even possible to defend the BB or even "the blinds", because if you choose to defend the pot will always be larger than that.

    The BB has more incentive to defend his share of the pot than other players in terms of cost to challenge (because of his discount), and less incentive in terms of strategy advantage (because of his position - depending on how you value preflop vs. postflop position).
  • Adam WheelerAdam Wheeler Red Chipper Posts: 2,633 ✭✭✭✭
    edited October 11
    You defend when you choose to not fold your hand versus a previous aggressive action either by calling or 3 betting.

Leave a Comment

BoldItalicStrikethroughOrdered listUnordered list
Emoji
Image
Align leftAlign centerAlign rightToggle HTML viewToggle full pageToggle lights
Drop image/file