I think I've finally understood why position is important. Here is an example:

Player A has a hand with showdown value. He has no intention of folding, but he wants to employ pot control and reach showdown as cheaply as possible. We will say he has QQ and he is the preflop raiser, but the board comes Kxx, but he doesn't necessarily believe that his opponent has a K (due to some other busted draws out there).

Player B has a monster hand. He wants to extract as much value as possible. We will say he called a preflop raise with 22 and flopped a set. His ultimate goal is to get 4 value bets in postflop. This is how he intends to do it:

Out of position: check/raise flop, barrel turn, barrel river = 4 value bets
In position: raise flop, barrel turn, barrel river = 4 value bets
(Player B expects Player A to Cbet the flop)

Here is how the hand plays out in reality:

When Player B is out of position:
B checks flop (intending to check/raise)
A checks behind (employing pot control)
B bets turn
A calls
B bets river
A calls
TOTAL = 2 value bets extracted

When Player B is in position:
A checks flop (employing pot control)
B bets flop
A calls
A checks turn
B bets turn
A calls
A checks river
B bets river
A calls
TOTAL = 3 value bets extracted

Thus Player B is able to extract more value in position than out of position.

Is this a good example of the power of position? Can you come up with any better examples?

Yeah, in a nutshell, being in position post-flop gives you superior control over the size of the pot, since you can bet/raise if you want to bloat the pot, you can call or check behind if you want to keep it small, and you can fold to a bet if you don't want to put in any money at all.
As your example implies, a hand that wants to get to showdown cheaply (for 2 bets, say) has a hard time doing so OOP, as the player in position can bet all three in order to deny his opponent a cheap showdown.

Personally I don't think that control of pot size is a good way to describe the value of position, but I would be happy to have someone provide some convincing arguments that help me see otherwise. I think whether we are IP, or OOP, we will have an equal amount of decision points where we have control over the size of the pot.. I think simply the value of position comes from the informational advantage that the second player undeniably has. No matter how the OOP player decides to construct his ranges, the IP player will always be able to make more accurate decisions due to his opponents more defined ranges. I think this edge adds up over the course of 3 post flop streets of which the size of the pot is on average increasing across all streets and therefore why we see the advantage of position so important. I also think a large part of why we see such a difference in EV due to positional advantage comes from people playing poorly OOP, such as always checking to the pre flop aggressor, etc...

I would agree that the biggest advantage is getting to act last, but this of course gives us the advantage of controlling the size of the pot more easily.

Although in shallower SPR's playing OOP can be good. Being able to bet first and force your opponent to a really stuff decision can be very effective. By betting first you take away the advantage of being able to go for a cheap steal IP.

2 examples;
Player 1 has Top pair decent kicker and wants to get 2 bets in vs villains range but player 2 has a set and wants to get stacks in. Just think this thru in and out of position for each scenario.

Example 2;
Player A 3 bets KK and goes to the flop heads up on Axx. Imagine playing KK on Axx OOP and again IP.

Just those two examples, if you just think them over a bit contain all u need to know.

Basically it's this; in position you can better control the size of the pot and you do so with one full streets worth of additional info about villains range.

Key points are; every time you act on your hand you potentially split your range and narrow it down for your opponent who, if in pos, can better control pot size in light of this new info.
And: getting one extra bet in (say w a set vs TP) is often worth more in EV than all the other streets combined. Getting one more pot sized bet in on the river is more profit than you get from all the other action combined. It's a real big deal

As far as both players having equal chance to control the pot size??? Errr???
I'm not sure where that's coming from.

If OOP player wants 4 bets he has to check raise some street and the player in position can check back and cut that to max 2 bets.

In pos you can raise some street and assure 4 bets go in to get to showdown, if OOP player checks the player in position can still bet and make sure at least 3 instead of 2 bets get in before showdown.

And that's just one simple example. When you run two ranges into each other that have different ideas about how many bets they'd like to get in before showdown the player OOP loses. Often it shows up as the player OOP either having to put one more bet in than he wanted to or making a fold he didn't want to.

Rethink that idea about both players having equal chance to control the pot. It must be an over generalization or incomplete thought.

It's not true for stacks of whatever given depth for the spot.

The amount of money getting in, isn't really the "power of position", especially in NLHE, as you can just overbet, obviously this doesn't take into account the ability of using more bluffs when betting polar range for 3 streets instead of 2.

It's more about equity realization. In eariler streets the IP guy can just easier see turn and river cards, as he closes the action, making it possible to check a lot more capped range. No need to check that much of the nutnut hands as you will always get a bit more nut hands when you checkback and a new card comes. Where as the player out of position needs to protect the checking range more, as the player in position is still left to act.

And on river this effect just becomes massive, IP guy can just checkback all SDV hands and bet polar range. OOP guy can't do that, he needs to check more "balanced" range or will get destroyed.

Like a spot where OOP guy has more polar and stronger range in 3b pot on OTF and OTT, for example BBvBU 3b, but the board is kind of volatile, FD or OESDs etc. If a lot of draws get in OTR, OOP guy is forced to check some decent hands, where as when OOP checks, IP guy can just check all weak and medium hands, bet strong and bluffs. Here IP guy realizes equity so much better with TP type hands, than OOP guy.

one of the things i can do with position i just saying ONE, is call the flop with overs, or air just because i know the or is cbeting always, then when he checks the turn i bet and he fold, i made this A LOT with information ofc.

I can write a long post about position, but i think everyone knows why is so important.

The practical thing about position is having more information. If your opponent checks, that gives you something. If he check,calls, that gives you something. You have more control because you act last. You have more information because you act last. Pot control is just a side effect of that.

THIS. Good post

The power of position doesn't really come from our lack of ability to control the pot size OOP, it comes from the fact that we need to be balancing multiple ranges and the IP player can play more accurately against us, than we can vs him. The river is by far the easiest street to see the power of position, and think in terms of the AKQ game for simplicity if that makes things easier. Just read Doctors post, because he nailed it IMO

This is all crazy talk

of course the player in position can more easily control the size of the pot. I mean, well, the OOP player can just jam all in out of position at any point in the hand so, you're technically correct, but just technically.

Maybe I should be very careful how I put this;
Ok, got it.

Playing IP allows you to control the size of the pot without having to do something ******ed like jam two times the size of the pot with a linear range to prove Donovan wrong.

Yeah, OK, OOP can technically do what he wants to the pot size but he can't do that and play optimally.

So position allows a player to better control the size of the pot with one streets additional info on villain's range (assuming neither player wants to play poorly and lose money on purpose to prove a point).

Answer the question, why is getting stacks in over single or 2 streets, worse than 3 streets? And why would jamming 2x the pot be considered ******ed ?

its not always bad to jam 2x pot but sometimes it is.
They way you size your bets will be higher or lower EV based on the way your betting range is constructed
if your range is polarized then you should favor larger bets
if you want to bet more hands, including thinner value bets, you can't just jam 2x pot or you just turn a fine value hand into a bluff in that your opponent will never (doesn't have to) pay off with second best hands.

I think it's important to start with some simpler concepts before getting into polarization, equity distributions, etc and I think if you just work thru the simpler stuff first it will become obvious why you would want to be able to use different sizings with different ranges.

Now, in a pure PvsBC scenario (polar vs bluff catcher) it really is OK to use the over bets and in a pure PvsBC scenario the power of position is pretty useless for other reasons too (namely, the player w the range of BC's never has incentive to bet into a polarized range if he is OOP or if he is IP)

but in spots where ranges are not so clearly PvsBC there is an obvious advantage in playing in position and THE BULK of this advantage comes from the ability to control the size of the pot without doing things that are inherently -EV

Yeah you are talking a lot of correct stuff, but clearly missing the point I'm trying to make, and seem to be avoiding the question.

If we are making the argument that the value of position comes from making 3 bets instead of 2, we kind of assume we have hands that can bet 3 streets, which then are quite strong. For this kind of range, why is getting the money in the middle 2 streets worse than 3?

If we then jump to scenario where we only have 2 street valuehands, why is position important, when we can just make 2 identical bets over the last 2 streets as first 2?

I'm not trying to avoid i'm just typing at work in between apts and this is a very complex topic.

Part of the problem is, and this is what i think you're reading as avoidance, is there is a bit of this line of questioning that is similar to asking "how should we play poker?"

Speaking of apts, i have one hear but i'm gonna think if there are some simplifications i can apply and get back to you soon

(for simplicity let's assume HU pot)
It is possible for equity distributions to create a spot where the players are in a pure PvsBC situation where the player with the bluff catcher range is never going to bet and the player with the polarized betting range will bet all his value and some % of bluffs regardless of his being in or out of position
but
that's not the only way ranges can interact and, even though position is sort of irrelevant in that the P player always has a betting range and the BC never does, position can still matter in practice because of the way pots grow over two instead of three streets of betting.

OK, don't get too hung up on that for a second.
Let's just see if we can agree on a couple of assumptions. I had a long winded response with a few different examples and then I tried to anticipate your retorts like "Yeah, but, what if.. X" and I tried to answer them but that is what I mean by this line of questioning being akin to "how should we play poker". There are a lot of things we have to agree on before we can get to this spot where we can decide if the player in position can more effectively control the size of the pot (WITHOUT SACRIFICING EV).

I think if you agree with these assumptions, though, this follows naturally and we can skip the discussion or most of it.

Assumption number one;
1) It is often the case that a player will have a betting range that is wider and less polarized and will, therefore be more profitably bet with a smaller sizing.

(If we don't agree that polarized ranges and large bets go hand in hand and that wider less polarized aggression ranges are more profitably bet with relatively smaller, non over bet, sizings then that is the crux of our debate)

2) the players in a pot will have ranges that have different goals for the pot in terms of how much money goes in before a showdown can occur

3) sometimes players will have similar overall equity distributions relative to the board and will have similar but conflicting goals for the pot; for instance; both players would like to get three streets of value from the bottom of their opponent's range, get to show down with at least 1 bet and not more than 2 bets going in against the middle of that range, and get to show down with as little money going in as possible against the top of that range.

4) It is often the case that a player will split their range once they have acted on their hand

I actually think i could go futher with this list but I could also just clean it up some and say;
IF we agree that sometimes we ought to have a wider aggression range (bet with a higher frequency) and sometimes we will have a less frequent and more polarized aggression range and that the following correlation holds;
the more polarized my aggression range they larger my bet sizing ought tend to be
the wider and more depolarized my betting range should be the smaller the sizing i ought to use
and;
the player in position will be better able to determine what his aggression range should be (i think we agree here) and he will be able to better give his OOP opponent the option of putting X bets in by the river or folding

If we agree that the range of hands we ought to be aggressive with has an affect on the sizing we should use per street (or per "bet") and that some situations make over betting a bad decision relative to using a smaller sizing then I think it follows pretty obviously that the player in position can control the pot size better than the player OOP.

It is also worth mentioning that some ranges/hands prefer to bet flop bet turn and check the river back and sometimes you do better to check flop, bet or call turn, bet or call river
and sometimes it is best to bet flop, check turn, bet or call river,
and sometimes you will want to bet flop, bet turn, and bet river

> It absolutely matters if you put 100bbs in post flop by betting it evenly across three streets (by evenly i mean in even %'s of the pot per street), compared to betting the same 100bb's by betting larger but only on two streets.

> You cannot solve the problem of being OOP by just donk betting into PFR when you would like to bet three streets for value with some of your range and bluff three streets with other parts

> Some of our hands will be better bet on specific streets even if the number of streets we want to bet are the same

> players in position are better able to put there opponent in a spot where they can dictate the number of bets that go in in order to get to showdown

I am going to actually take one more step in simplifying this; here we go;

If you agree that; It matters how large you chose your sizings on a street to street basis and sometimes it is better to use smaller bets in or out of position
and
the player in position is better able to decide what the minimum number of bets that have to go into the pot in order for their to be a showdown
then we have arrived at "the player in position can better control the pot size"

Am I getting anywhere?

What questions or comments or arguments or responses may you have to this?

lets look at a CO open and a resteal from either the button or the BB.

PFR (re-stealer who is either button or BB) AsJc
CO: (a range that raises and calls a 3 bet)

flop KcJdTs

If AJ is button, can we see that the CO can't just donk into us on that flop?> We have all set combos in our range, we have the nuts (AQ), and plenty of pair plus draw hands that we can leverage our nutted and uncapped range with facing a donk.
If OOP checks to IP then AJ (IP) can just check back and get one street closer to show down with his hand that is unlikely to get called by worse or fold out better hands and has a lot to gain by seeing what the turn is before deciding how big a pot HE WANTS TO PlAY.

What if we are in the BB? Now we have AJ on KJT and are OOP. How can we control the pot size? And does it not matter what street bets get in on?

If we check as PFR we cap our range and the player in position could bet a size and range on the flop that makes us indifferent to calling with bluff catchers and we would prob call as we have our arguably best bluff catcher.
but what if the turn bricks and the player in position makes a large bet? That sux for us, right? He can decide how much money we have to put in to get to show down with our Jx and decide which streets he wants to bluff (and it does matter which he choses depending on what the turn is)

What if we are the open raiser and call the 3 bet?
What can we do to control the size of the pot if we are OOP? Nothing, not without playing bad.

It's easy to say "We can always just over bet streets OOP", and "whats the difference between putting a lot of money in by over betting twice or barreling a normal size three times?" Until you put up some actual examples and see where the logic breaks down.

Yeah, when you have an uncapped range and at least a neutral flop as OOP player and your opponent checks the flop back capping his range then you can use a polarized range to over bet the turn and the river and there is nothing your opponent can do about that without making an adjustment like checking back some nutted value hands on the flop and opening a turn raise vs lead for value range and balancing it with bluffs.

But there are so many hands that go down where the best line for the player in the betting lead will want to chose smaller sizings and as long as this is the case then the player in position can absolutely use his position to control the pot size.

In fact, I would argue that the main advantage to position is being able to pot control.

I'll ask, too, what on Earth would you do with the informational advantage that comes from playing in position? You would use it to attempt to control the pot size.

You cannot always open a donk betting range on the flop as OOP PFC
Sometimes you want to use smaller than pot sized bets in or out of position with your betting ranges
It does matter if you BBC, BCB, CBB, or whatever, the street or streets you bet do matter because equities can change on a street to street basis (especially on dynamic/volatile flops)
If OOP wants to get exactly 3 bets in IP player will be able to make it 4 or cut it to 2 depending on how OOP wants to get those bets in (if he plans to check raise flop and bet turn then check river he can be reduced to max 2 bets by IP checking flop back) if he wants to check and call flop turn and river then IP can just check the river back. If he wants to donk flop and check and call one street then IP can raise the donk bet and bet turn and river.

It ought to be clear that the player in position can best control the pure NUMBER of wagers that get into the pot (or deny a showdown)

So the only other points that seem, to me, to matter, is that we acknowledge that which streets you bet, raise, or check, matter. AND MORE IMPORTANTLY you cannot always over bet a given street to "make up for" missing another street. Bet sizing relative to the pot size on any given street matters a lot.

I think I got us there, right?

too bad we play NO limit poker, so anyone can bet any amount they want to make the pot as big as they want, or to make people fold when they want. so the ones who can bet first on the scary card are actually in advantage.
they only advantage of the position is that you can slowplay **** and not give the villain an opportunity to check behind the river when you got the nuts and they are with sd value or to see the showdown with a losing hand and get an information from that hand into the future hands.

2 very big posts, but I'm still not agreeing with you : D, guess we just have to live with that.

"If we then jump to scenario where we only have 2 street valuehands, why is position important, when we can just make 2 identical bets over the last 2 streets as first 2?"

Because on the river our opponents bluffcatchers are drawing dead.

Yeah, guess you are meaning the same thing as me, at least that's what I'm getting. Basically saying that we want to prevent equity realization - > if V is IP he can realize more equity with those bluffcatchers.

Yup. Also I have a loose theory that river value is worth more than that of previous streets; on early streets you're winning a fraction of the pot as long as your opponent holds hands that might outdraw you; on the river bluffcatchers are drawing dead; value bets are 100% value vs opponents bluffcatchers on the river.

Here's an example of what I'm talking about:

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/17...09/?highlight=

is this a troll or serious?