There are some players that, once the antes are involved will literally raise with any two. A lot of people think that this strategy is crazy, but I want to show the math behind why in some spots this may actually be directly profitable. I want to talk about why this may be acceptable against a field that is incredibly weak and passive.
If opponents are too tight preflop you only need that bet to succeed 50% of the time and you can instantly muck when you are called or raised and still profit from raising with any two. You can profit if you pick up the blinds 50% of the time.
If you are only risking 2.25 big blinds and there are 2.25 in the pot from blinds and ante. If a steal succeeds 50% of the time, you are guarenteed profit as long as you don't put another chip into the pot if opponent calls and opponent occasionally checks to the river OR if the steal succeeds more than 50% of the time.
If a caller not in the blinds with blinds folding offers you 2:1 odds. This means you can lose 2.25x twice, win 5 on the third and break even. So if opponent always calls, your hand only needs to be best 33% of the time assuming it checks to the river and/or any other bets and steals offer no advantage to you or your opponent over time.
Raising with any two cards with 33% equity or more with antes involved makes sense. Raising with any two cards when you will pick up the blinds 50% or more is also profitable. But what if you have zero equity and multiple opponents? How often on average does each opponent have to fold? Or More applicable, what hand range or blind defense percentage do you need opponents to have to raise with any two?
Exploiting opponents in Antes Stages with raises:
If your raise range of any two vs calling range of opponents has zero equity when opponents don't fold, you can raise with any two if remaining players defend this often assuming you bet the amount in the pot:
8: All opponents each must play 8.2996% of hands or less to a raise for steal to be profitable.
7: 9.43% of hands or less.
6: 10.91% of hands or less.
5: 12.95% of hands or less.
4: 15.91% of hands or less.
3: 20.63% of hands or less.
Button: Steal profitable if blinds play 29.29% of all hands or less.
Small blind: Steal profitable if opponent plays 50% of all hands or more.
Big blind: Opponent must fold 50% of the hands he completes with or more.
If you have 20% equity when called (and all bets on and after flop break even), steal must succeed 35.56% of the time
Raise with any hand that has 20% equity if remaining opponents call this often or less:
8 12.13%
7 13.73%
6 15.83%
5 18.70%
4 22.78%
3 29.16%
2 40.37%*
1 64.44%*
If you have 30% equity when called (and all bets on and after flop break even), steal must succeed only 3.333% of the time.
Raise with hand that has 30% equity if remaining opponents call this often or less:
Hand % of opponents needed given X players remaining:
8 34.64%
7 38.49%
6 43.27%
5 49.35%
4 57.27%
3 67.82%
2 81.74%*
1 96.67%*
*You actually need opponents to defend less often in the blinds for all of these calculations since
when calls come from the blinds you don't get 2:1 like you would if players out of the blind calls. This is true from all positions but since only opponents remaining are in the blinds when there are 1 or 2 players left this is especially true.
With 33% equity or more it's profitable to raise regardless of whether or not opponents call. However if multiple opponents call the situation is too complicated to calculate.
So you might say well let's find out the odds our hands is best is at least 33% and raise with that...
First, just so you are aware, the problem with that in normal conditions against good players is that opponents won't just call. As such, you are probably calling a small raise and putting in a total of 6 big blinds after opponent raises you and your pot odds if opponent plays is 8.5:6 which means you need to be greater than 40% to win. Since some steals will work, typically looking at having a 40% chance of having the best hand is close enough. This is not the same as 40% equity but makes for a much easier calculation.
But we aren't assuming normal conditions and good opponents. We are assuming weak, passive players. Until they adjust by restealing, you can raiseas long as a hand has 33% equity.
We will solve for the hand range that always has at least a 33% chance of being best.
Please note: The real solution to the problem would be closer to attempting to determine which hands vs a particular hand range deny us 33% equity and determine the probability we are up against one of those hands as less than 50% (since if opponent folds we pick up the blinds and if opponent calls and we check down to the river, we lose nothing on average... approximately this means we will have enough equity on hands where opponent has us crushed and calls to trap to). We'd then widen the range and adjust the hands that deny us 33% equity until we can not longer improve the results.
That is too complicated, not entirely correct since we'd have to throw in weird assumptions, and besides, the strategy of raising that often is vulnerable to opponents who begin 3betting aggressively with more hands so it's not a perfect representation of any real condition but just a baseline anyways. I don't necessarily think it's worth the work.
Nevertheleess, Just for the sake of strategy, I want to come up with a strategy that allows you a 33% chance that preflop hand is best. At least if you have a tight image and are getting more desperate for chips, you can use this to widen from the more mathematically sound (optimal against optimal opponents or optimal against complete unknowns) 40% chance of having the best preflop because you can assume that opponents assume you aren't coming in for a raise unless you have a good hand since you've been card dead and haven't put in a single raise in awhile.
8 players left:12.84% of hands.
7 players left:14.53% of hands.
6 players left:16.74% of hands.
5 players left:19.74% of hands.
4 players left:24.02% of hands.
3 players left:30.66% of hands.
2 players left:42.26% of hands.
1 player left:66.67% of hands.
The hand ranges translates into:
8) 44+,AJ+,KQ,A9s+,K9s+,Q9s+,J9s+,T9s+
7) 33+,AT+,KQ,A8s+,K9s+,Q9s+,J9s+,T9s+
6) 33+,At+,KJ+,A5s+,K9s+,Q9s+,J9s+,T9s+,98s
5) 22+,A9+,KJ+,QJ,A3s+,K9s+,Q9s+,J9s+,T8s+,98s
4) 22+,A5+,KJ+,QJ,JT,A2s+,K9s+,Q9s+,J8s+,T8s+,98s
3) 22+,A2+,KT+,QT+,JT,K8s+,Q8s+,J8s+,T8s+,97s+,87s,
2) 22+,A2+,K8+,QT+,JT,T8+,98,87,K3s+Q6s+,J6s+,T6s+,96s+,85s,75s,64s+
1) 22+,A2+,K2+,Q2+,J5+,T7+,97+,86+,J2s+,T3s+,95s+,84s+,74s+,64s+,54s,43s
While this isn't quite "raise with any two" particularly out of position, keep in mind that we made several assumptions that wouldn't be true in weak fields and it is easier to have 33% equity against a single caller with a hand that is the worst over 90% of the time than it is to find a hand that starts out strongest out of ten players more than 33% of the time. You could probably raise quite close to any two and have 33% equity. Actually extracting that equity after the flop is not so easy since opponent will deny you the chance to check it down and you will have to bluff often enough to fight for equity and draw and value bet and semibluff often enough to extract bets to make up for the times you are forced to fold. But it is possible.
If you have an edge after the flop and opponent's fold too much after the flop, we can play more hands. If we have position, we can play more hands. If we have a less than 33% chance our hand i BEST preflop BUT have 33% equity vs our opponent's hand, we can raise more hands.
If our opponents occasionally fold or just call instead of raise, we can play more hands.
If stacks are deeper proportionally to our chip stack and opponents are unable to fold a single pair to a large bet while also folding too often when they don't have a pair, we can play more hands.
3bet exploiting and 4bet exploiting is more complicated because opponents can fold, call, reraise, or we could be squeezed by another opponent who remains.
If opponents DO 3bet light but fold to 4bets too frequently, we can raise with more hands and 4bet with a very wide range to prevent the vulnerability that raising too many hands theoretically comes with or even exploit our opponent's general tendency to like to apply pressure, but not like to call off their chips until they have enough information to make such a decision.
If we have a tight image and have not played any hand recently we can play more hands. Or if we have developed a loose image just recently but have gone several hands without playing in a single pot and now we have an inkling that an aggressive player will 3bet too frequently and fold to 4bet, we can raise with more hands hoping for a 3bet to shove with any two. If we have recently shoved with any two twice and feel opponent's are afraid to 3bet light, this may reinforce our ability to be successful by raising with any two.
If we have more chips than opponent we can probably raise with any two. If stacks are such that a 3bet shove would be too large (say 12 times our bet) but a 4bet push would be just right (say 4 or 5 times our opponent's bet and 3 to 4 times what's in the pot), we can raise more often as well, but have to 3bet less often or just flat call instead. We can 4bet 60% of our opponent's range (or more if opponent is going to call less than 40% of the time we shove.)
If there is one donkey calling too loosely preflop and we have him significantly outchipped, we can raise with just about any two, raise much larger amounts and keep betting and even pushing all in very wide knowing that opponent doesn't have the hand to call often enough. If we suspect opponent will call too often with any draw and bottom pair we can still isolate and just use small bets when we are bluffing and large bets when we are shoving, and we still may be able to move all in on the turn when the draw misses and we have live outs fairly frequently and extract profit.
Raising larger amounts with any two still must respect the oddsof another opponent putting in a 3bet and forcing us to fold.
Raising with any two usually is best if we have a physical tell on our opponent, but in some unique situations may be appropriate, particularly from the button when opponent's fold at least CLOSE to often enough to profit.
There are players that will in fact raise with any two. A player like Dan Harrington would wait for an extremely profitable situation and use his extremely tight image to make just a few crucial major steals and not care about his cards. Usually he would make a resteal or squeeze play steal with any two. A player like Phil Ivey might shift gears but rely his feel for the table and reading ability and intimidation to make the big pot bet plays (which He'll also use to get paid off on his monsters). A player like Michale Mizrachi or Gavin Smith will use his position and such to make lots of aggressive raises and small pot bluffs, using floating and min raises and other tactics to try to make a play.
Daniel Negreanu may not play "any two" but he does use position and "floating" flops a lot and reading opponents to extract value on more hands than most would play while getting more action on his big hands... He in turn will use his image of being a player who only plays a big pot with a big hand to then make the occasional large bet bluff which is the opposite of how he used to play.
A player like Scott Fishman establishes an image of opposite extremes and relies on that super tight image to begin raising a lot to establish a mild suspicion that turns into a possible opportunity. Opponents then would raise expecting that something is different, but then when Scott 4bet shoves light they give him credit after letting him win several pots in a row. He could go from 40 big blinds to 65 in a single "gear change" and then take his pick on how he wants to play from there.
A player like Phil Helmuth is similar to Dan Harrington in that he establishes a tight image, but rather than resteal, Phil might just randomly out of left field decide to raise under the gun with Q2s or 86 off. He is probably hoping for a call of loose opponents hoping to hit a monster such as from 22 since that opponent has a really good chance of folding on the flop and getting him more than just the blinds. We will then go back to playing tight and throw in some random raises. Phil also does have a loose "gear" too where he tries to outplay everyone but relies more on physical tells like Ivey and still will probably have some standards about his cards.
While you don't ever NEED to adopt this "any two strategy", it is a fast gear particularly useful in tournaments to prevent chips from dwindling down as the blinds rise by 20% per level.
Increasing chips at 20% per level from 40 big blinds would basically require a strategy that yields 8 big blinds per level to maintain that 40 big blinds. In reality you might take a risk and lose a large percentage a decent percentage of the time and be forced into an all in or fold game and then bust out or double up and try to get back in it. So you might use a strategy that actually yields only 4 big blinds or 2 big blinds per level on average but since you take a high varience big pot or bust strategy a large percentage of the time you actually may have a much bigger stack than that and you can get yourself in position to win.
There may even be a losing cash game strategy that is a winning tournament strategy for two reasons.
1)The blinds are in a perpetual state of increase. Playing super tight for example and only winning the blinds isn't all that bad since the blinds you win will be higher. In a cash game if you only wanted to win the blinds, you would have to win enough to pay for each rotation. In a tournament because the blinds are higher in one level than the previous, a single steal 5 levels from now may make up for nearly half of what's needed to cover the 4 levels before it. Doing the reverse and playing too loose and being exploitable to resteals or limping in loose and being exploitable to raise steals in earlier stages can set up a more profitable limp shove or 4bet shove with a wider shove range and/or tighter limp raise at the higher levels if opponents continue to attempt to capitalize off of your "weak" strategy.
2)The tournament pays you NOTHING if you make a losing strategy, and NOTHING if you make a winning one. While a winning one is more likely to get you chips and a losing one is more likely to lose chips,consider betting and bluffing on every street with a final all in move on the turn or river. The odds of success might be 70% and on average you might pick up 28big blinds and 30% of the time you lose 100 if opponent is trapping you. This in a cash game would on average lose 2 big blinds for this decision.
3)The antes. Antes usually aren't involved in cash games and they make a world of difference
But if 70% of the time that extra "unprofitable move" is enough to finish deep as a result of doing that ONCE all tournament as a result of having enough chips to pick up a steal or two during blind levels you normally couldn't afford to wait for, and allow you to wait for a better hand ultimately from which to risk your tournament life? What if you can parlay those extra 28 big blinds into a final table 40% of the time and what if you can survive to this point of making that move 65% of the time? You'd final table 18% of the time. And if you are also playing aggressive with 5 players left in a similar matter, you might win the tournament a decent chunk of the time. That "unprofitable decision" may have been the key to the entire thing.
Well this all sounds like theory and speculation... But there is definitely some more in depth analysis that can show when this may be true.
A faster tournament structure will either require multiple unprofitable big pot bluffs or multiple all ins which is very unlikely for you to survive them all. If you look at an actual structure and how many big blinds you'll have you can calculate a number of "M's" per rotation (number of M's is a multiple of the small blind plus big blind plus all of the antes) that you gain at each level. If you can make about 3 "M's" per rotation on average, you will probably never have to call an all in and you will probably have more than 40 big blinds permanently.
Unfortunately, you can't always bluff the table senseless or get a lot of value, and doing so my come with a high risk of elimination. Since the chips you play for once the antes are in are worth more and the pots are bigger, you want to maximize your chances of survival. That means very tight early in the first few levels and only trying to come up with half a steal per rotation or one every 2 rotations is probably best. You probably will also get called and have to play a flop with the likely superior hand. That's fine. You also will probably have a chance to extract value in the pots you are in such that you do grow your stack. If not and you just maintain it while the blinds go up, you still should get a pretty good chance to double up with a premium hand. It's okay to risk your tournament life a few times in a large tournament. You can still have numbers that are among the best in terms of percentage of final table with a few all ins. It may be more ideal to just win 3"M" on average throughout the tournament but that may be challenging.
So you may need to get it all in with KK or AA while trying to extract value in a pretty big pot with QQ and AK and JJ and TT and AQ you try to win a small to medium sized pot and avoid trouble.
When the blinds pick up so you have 40 big blinds, you need to pick things up somehow. At least when it gets to 30. Some people like to wait longer, but that's too common. If you do that you'll end up making the ALL IN resteal which is more volatile and more risky for a smaller pot. I'd rather take a big risk on a large bet after the flop when I have more information and can read board texture and assess my opponent's odds of hitting the flop and such.
It is difficult to raise and pick up a steal when you get under 20, and another increase or two in the blinds is all it takes. You must not let it get there, and you must recognize the possibility of going card dead and blinds rising quickly PLUS a play not working. So preempt that by making the big move or medium move when you have 40 big blinds. My favorite is the minreraise preflop, check raise shove on the flop from the big blind if the board texture is right or if I have a draw of any kind. You can also call the check call, check the turn and bet the river if opponent won't fire the second. Or check raise the river against an opponent who double barrels. Another move is all in shoving light from the small blind avfter several limpers. Or there's the squeeze play.
I prefer not to use "moves" so much as maybe playing a hand for a slightly bigger pot by using the 4x raise early, the 3.5x raise and then the 3, then the 2.5x then the 2x or making higher variance, riskier decisions after the flop such as floating my opponent with nothing to bluff the turn. (or even a supersystem style strategy of overbet semibluffs and overbet with twopair+).
I'd much rather pick apart opponent's tendencies than make a predetermined "move" though. The slightly bigger pots when you have the best hand as a default raise when you have enough chips to withstand greater varience can make a difference in the point at which you drop to 40 big blinds or 30 big blinds or below. Without the antes you are going to have to accept that you probably will drop below 30 big blinds unless you can double up.
Ideally, you want to survive to the ante stages with chips a very high percentage of the time. If you can survive to the ante stages with less than 20 big blinds or survive to the antestages 60% of the time with 50 big blinds it's a tough call because with 50 big blinds at that stage you probably only need to gain an M of 2 per rotation for most of the tournament with a few moments of being closer to 3. With 20 big blinds though in the ante stages and a tight image, you can do a lot of damage since your stack is ripe to resteal shove or limpraise shove light and a lot of players may not adjust or the antes. You can also try an aggressive steal from the small blind or big blind and follow it up with a bet on the flop. You definitely may end up looking like a fool or maniac, but it beats the alternative of not having any chips 40% of the time. However, I'm thinking your odds of getting caught are pretty good. But if you get caught you still should have on average maybe a 33% chance to win if you are not dominated
In conclusion, if you can get opponents to fold often enough, the additional value the antes provide may make raising with nearly any two profitable at least forr a limited time until oppponents adjust. Add to the fact that in position you are often going to be able to outplay weaker opponents and extract more value than just the equity of the hand through advanced plays and bluffs and value bets and semibluffs and balancing ranges of value bets and bluffs and identifying where opponents are exploitable. Add in reading ability if you are at a physical game and it's not hard to imagine why playing any two cards can potentially be marginally profitable or break even when you have the worst and very profitable when you have strong hands.
No comments:
Post a Comment