Better to be Out of Position?

[Trix]

was discussing this the other day with a mate.

he was arguing that being 'in position' is not, contrary to popular belief, necessarily the best position to be in.

As we know, most hands miss most flops - you will hit a flop 1 time in 3 i believe. So imagine the situation where you are in a heads up pot and you have both missed the flop. Now, conventional thinking says that it is better to be in position here because the first player will usually just check when they miss the flop and a bet by you in position can pick up the pot.

But my friends argument was that his position of being first to act can and should be used to bet first - the player acting last by definition obviously cannot bet first.

He argued that the player first to act in a heads up pot should never check but bet out. This way it is him who will pick up all the pots in which both players have missed the flop and because this player is first to act gives him the opportunity/advantage to bet out first and do so.

The most obvious example of the situation is SB v BB. My friend argues that the SB has the positional advantage for the reasons above.


When he first said that 'position is bollocks, its better to be out of position' i laughed at him. But when he presented his case as above i had to think twice.

Thoughts? Is my pal right?

[jezza777]

Good point and I agree in a heads up situation it can be favourable to act first. I very much agree with always betting out for the reasons your friend states and also if you bet out every time wether on a bluff or made hand then you are difficult to read . Also for you to take a shot at the pot costs only one unit (unit being the amount of the pot) If you oppo wants to repop you it will cost him closer to 3 units.

[thetank]

I'd say the flaw in his argument is that at no point has he mentioned the word raise.

Play your friend with deep-ish stacks and let him act first post flop every single hand.

See who wins.

For sure he'll have the better oppurtunity to win the blinds cheaply post flop every hand, but in the big pots, you'll have position. This can let you win more when ahead, and lose less when behind.

Consider slow playing for example. With position, you never have to check the river and pray your opponent bets, he bets or he doesn't and you can extract all the value there, never missing the oppurtunity to have him pay for a showdown when you got the goods.

[Royal Flush]

was discussing this the other day with a mate.

he was arguing that being 'in position' is not, contrary to popular belief, necessarily the best position to be in.

As we know, most hands miss most flops - you will hit a flop 1 time in 3 i believe. So imagine the situation where you are in a heads up pot and you have both missed the flop. Now, conventional thinking says that it is better to be in position here because the first player will usually just check when they miss the flop and a bet by you in position can pick up the pot.

But my friends argument was that his position of being first to act can and should be used to bet first - the player acting last by definition obviously cannot bet first.

He argued that the player first to act in a heads up pot should never check but bet out. This way it is him who will pick up all the pots in which both players have missed the flop and because this player is first to act gives him the opportunity/advantage to bet out first and do so.

The most obvious example of the situation is SB v BB. My friend argues that the SB has the positional advantage for the reasons above.


When he first said that 'position is bollocks, its better to be out of position' i laughed at him. But when he presented his case as above i had to think twice.

Thoughts? Is my pal right?

Tell him to come to the HU tables on blonde, i will gladly play him. Warn him that his leads might get raised though!

I never try to play a big pot OOP in HU situations.

[geeforce1]

was discussing this the other day with a mate.

he was arguing that being 'in position' is not, contrary to popular belief, necessarily the best position to be in.

As we know, most hands miss most flops - you will hit a flop 1 time in 3 i believe. So imagine the situation where you are in a heads up pot and you have both missed the flop. Now, conventional thinking says that it is better to be in position here because the first player will usually just check when they miss the flop and a bet by you in position can pick up the pot.

But my friends argument was that his position of being first to act can and should be used to bet first - the player acting last by definition obviously cannot bet first.

He argued that the player first to act in a heads up pot should never check but bet out. This way it is him who will pick up all the pots in which both players have missed the flop and because this player is first to act gives him the opportunity/advantage to bet out first and do so.

The most obvious example of the situation is SB v BB. My friend argues that the SB has the positional advantage for the reasons above.


When he first said that 'position is bollocks, its better to be out of position' i laughed at him. But when he presented his case as above i had to think twice.

Thoughts? Is my pal right?

Tell him to come to the HU tables on blonde, i will gladly play him. Warn him that his leads might get raised though!

I never try to play a big pot OOP in HU situations.

or come 2 cash tables. this is not a winning plan Vs good players and will only work if table is super passive.

[Sheriff Fatman]

Its a known theory that there are situations where being first to act is advantageous but its not correct to think that this therefore is a general rule.

Pots do often develop where 'first to bet wins' (and the well known 'Stop n Go' play is an example of applying this kind of thinking) but an opponent in position can still overcome this strategy by raising an opponent who always leads out on the flop.  Sometimes he'll have a hand, sometimes he won't.  However, he'll always have position on his opponent who is now back on the defensive.

Sheriff

[ACE2M]

1st to act advantage is most prevalent when you are a big stack and call raises from the blinds against shorter stacks, you can usually make a bet that is fairly insignificant to your stack but commits your opponent to the pot if he wants to play it all the way. This is a very +ev play in my experience.

[Trix]

Tell him to come to the HU tables on blonde, i will gladly play him. Warn him that his leads might get raised though!

But like Jezza posted, if he leads out hit or miss then you wont know when he has it or not. and also as jezza points out it will cost you more to find out than it does for the 1st bettor.


the tank:

I have this situation in mind for unraised pots for eg SB v BB where its called then checked. Because 2 random hands are just as likely to miss the flop whereas if the opp raised pre it may indicate a good/made hand which will be moee likely to be ther better hand post flop.

[Royal Flush]

But like Jezza posted, if he leads out hit or miss then you wont know when he has it or not.

I will just start raising him

[jezza777]

But like Jezza posted, if he leads out hit or miss then you wont know when he has it or not.

I will just start raising him

no F****ing change there then....

[thetank]

the tank:

I have this situation in mind for unraised pots for eg SB v BB where its called then checked. Because 2 random hands are just as likely to miss the flop whereas if the opp raised pre it may indicate a good/made hand which will be moee likely to be ther better hand post flop.

I wasn' t thinking of SB vs BB type thangs. As such, the stuff I said may not be relevant to that.

The dynamic in a small blind vs big blind confrontation is typically very different from an actual heads up game (1 vs 1 being the only players at the table).

For sure they both have two random cards, but aggression and blind defence are not as much of a necessity at the full table as they are where the only way you are going to win is to get the chips of the other guy. The guy to your left may play meekly against you all night SB vs BB, but win his chips elsewhere. In 1 vs 1, you're the only chap he's going to get em offa, he has no other choice but to stand and fight.

Another thing that makes the dynamic different is that heads up 1 x 1 you get every hand being played against each other. Whereas If youre in a hand heads up SB vs BB in an MTT, there's no guarantee you'll ever be playing that opponent in a future hand. Setting tricky traps and manipulating betting rhythm etc can be of more important in the former.

I will just start raising him

True, he gonna bet at you every flop, he's going to get raised every flop so....

Also for you to take a shot at the pot costs only one unit (unit being the amount of the pot) If you oppo wants to repop you it will cost him closer to 3 units.

I'm thinking something similar is true on the original bettor if his bet gets raised every hand.
It'll cost him closer to 9 units if he wants to dance and stake his claim, it only cost me 3.

If at that point they wanna play the same blind-ass game back, it gonna be bingo for sure, but come death or glory at least I'll have had "position" 

[ifm]

If you have a pop at a pot everytime OOP and get reraised everytime you start to fear the reraise, position can be so very, very powerful, some of the most respected poker writers will say it is the single most important factor in poker.
Watch the hand involving Ivey and Paul Jackson from Monte Carlo, that is an excellent example of positional play v actual holdings.

[snoopy1239]

Depends on so many factors.

For example, if you are stacked up in a multi yet have a big stacked Roland de Wolfe to your right, then he is going to be getting his chips in before you and taking up the blinds.

However, if you have balls of steel then you might like your position as you can re-raise him and push him off his steals. But that depends on your style.

In cash, it also depends on the situation. If I hit a set then I like to be in early position as I find it easier to disguise my holding to a potential over-pair.

Just a couple of examples of why it is such a hard question to answer.