No Such Thing as a Free Hunch - Pre-Flop - Brokos

[kevinful]

I remember some poker authors recommending the exact opposite pre-flop based on position than Brokos. Phil Gordon for one. Some points being that it would be committing less chips out of position and committing more chips in position, plus getting called more often with great pre-flop hands and getting folds more often with mediocre hands.

However, Brokos's points make a lot of sense as well. Is Phil Gordon full of it? I have the suspicion that at some higher level of opponent thinking, Brokos's pre-flop strategy may work better but lower levels should use the opposite strategy? Which opponents or which level should Brokos's strategy be geared towards?

[ajt8]

Don't question Phil Gordon

[atennisplayah]

^
+1, the guy is a genuis, he even won the World Series of Rock Paper Scissors.

[Foucault]

Very good question.

I haven't read Gordon's book, so I don't want to comment directly on his argument. You're probably right that small raises in EP and big raises in LP might be a more viable strategy in a soft game where opponents are not going to use position particularly well. This will enable you to play more hands from EP, which when you are far and away the best player is a good thing.

In tough games, though, I'd rather play fewer hands in EP and play them strongly and play more hands when my position is good. The small raises also allow me to continue against 3-bets out of the blinds more often.

Consider these two situations, both 150 BBs deep:

You are UTG with JJ, and there is a good player on the Button with 98s.

or

You are on the Button with 65s, and there is a good player on the BB with 98s.

I can tell you that I'd rather get called in the second situation than in the first. When stacks are deep, I'll take position and a wide range over a strong but narrowly defined range.

[dhman82]

Originally Posted by Foucault

Very good question.

I haven't read Gordon's book, so I don't want to comment directly on his argument. You're probably right that small raises in EP and big raises in LP might be a more viable strategy in a soft game where opponents are not going to use position particularly well. This will enable you to play more hands from EP, which when you are far and away the best player is a good thing.

In tough games, though, I'd rather play fewer hands in EP and play them strongly and play more hands when my position is good. The small raises also allow me to continue against 3-bets out of the blinds more often.

Consider these two situations, both 150 BBs deep:

You are UTG with JJ, and there is a good player on the Button with 98s.

or

You are on the Button with 65s, and there is a good player on the BB with 98s.

I can tell you that I'd rather get called in the second situation than in the first. When stacks are deep, I'll take position and a wide range over a strong but narrowly defined range.

definitely, i agree with you, +1 imho

[kevinful]

Thanks Brokos, very good answer!

The exact book I'm referring to by the way is Phil Gordon's Little Green Book, and it's written for beginners (which would follow that the advice is for soft games). The passage is only about three short paragraphs long, so you're not missing much of his argument!

[BigAlK]

Originally Posted by kevinful

I remember some poker authors recommending the exact opposite pre-flop based on position than Brokos. Phil Gordon for one.

I don't remember seeing this in any of Phil Gordon's books. Where I did see it was in Chris Ferguson's chapter of the Full Tilt book. Although this book is specific to tournament strategy Ferguson does have a video in Full Tilt's "Full Tilt Poker Academy" that makes this as a generic recommendation (cash games as well as tournaments).

An utg min-raise with a strong range gives compelling odds to the big blind to play a wide range of hands. That got me into some problems when playing with this strategy. It's also gotten some opponents into big trouble when I've been in the big blind. After playing around with this idea a bit I discarded it in my play.

However I can see pros and cons for both approaches. Either one might make sense depending on the specifics of the game you're playing. What they both have in common that is useful is the idea of varying your open raise size based on position and thus not giving away *new* information about your hand strength. That Andrew's recommendation builds the pot with what is a stronger hand range and charges your opponents more to play a pot with you in position seems to make sense. I'll have to play with this and see how well it works for me.

[Join2009]

he even won the World Series of Rock Paper Scissors.
If it's true then i must appreciate him

[PieFarmer]

Phil Gordon was my introduction to poker (he did write about this in his little green book), so I won't bash him, but I think Andrew has the better argument here.

[Elisavet]

World Series of Rock Paper Scissors. They use mind games, have seen live. Epic