Originally Posted by BarJerica
You're wrong. Position?
I addressed that in my OP, that MRing will help you to leverage your positional advantage in a couple ways. I just think that comes at a cost.
I know many good high stakes players MR near 100%
1) Serious students of poker study the game and try to learn from players who are better than they are.
2) Some great players discovered they make more profit by inviting lesser players to play pots against them out of position, and that opponents will sometimes defend vs MR too liberally or too tightly (adding to the profit). So great players use the strat effectively and often.
3) "Students" of these players watch them play and see that they use MR100 strat and conclude that "if Player A uses the strat then it must be a good way to play poker".
I'm just saying that it might just be a good way for "player A" to play poker. It could be correct for great players but incorrect in general.
I wonder if MRing the button 100% isn't just an overextrapolation from a specific circumstance in which it is effective; namely, when you have a post flop advantage in skill vs your opponent. But one that comes at a cost. Surely there are times when MRing is bad from a FTOP point of view. "If i have the best hand i would like to charge you an unfair price to draw against me and hope that you take me up" and if i don't have the best hand and i would rather you fold then my MR is not giving me good fold equity.
Surely my idea is plausible. It is at least logically consistent. So instead of making jokes, why wouldn't someone explain the reason that my theory is wrong.
If you are a player who MR's 100% from bttn or nearly 100% can you tell me WHY you do it?
If its just something you learned by watching good players then...