Originally Posted by DpR

I feel like maybe this is an issue of semantics if you are switching between informational advantage versus pot size since you specified that you did not thing that pot size drives value, although you then sort of write it here again.

You say we offset the positional advantage by keeping the pot small, thus magnifying our opponents mistakes. That seems opposite to me. I feel that being OOP means that we are going to make more mistakes since we have less information when we are making our decisions. Thus, the smaller pot magnifying mistakes hurts us more than our in position opponent.

In a game with fixed bet sizes, I think that larger the pot, the less the value of position. As per gaming_ question, if there is a ton of money in the pot already, it seems relatively irrelevant to me that we are OOP (tactical decisions are largely meaningless), we are going to showdown pretty much always - BB just gets to determine whether there is 100BBs or 101BBs in the pot....ho hum. In small pots that starts to have a lot of value, and tactical considerations are very significant since there huge portions of the pots value wrapped up in value/fold equity decisions.

Now, given that a large part of positional value is wrapped up in an information advantage, it definitely makes sense to me that you want to limit the information you provide for as long as possible. It just isn't really clear to me that a limping strategy is a great way to do that. In BvB situations, tactical considerations are very valuable, and I can think of some ways limping offers such advantages, but I am not sure that they are that difficult to counter by a strong playing BB.

I can't say I have thought much about this topic before right now, so I am really just spit balling here.....