I'm going to call Min raising your button every time with all hands when heads up "MR100" strat.

My feeling about MRing is that it has a cost in EV and is not strictly "correct" according to GTO (i can't prove this, its a theory). The reason it is an effective weapon FOR GOOD PLAYERS is that it effectively amplifies the post flop edge by inducing more calls from the BB who will then have to make his biggest decisions after the flop where the better player has the biggest edge. Additionally, the stack to pot ratio is kept high which also favors the better player, and the player who is in position.

I understand the idea of MRing and don't question its vallidity as a good strategy for taking full advantage of your positional and post flop skill edge.
I just believe that it comes at a preflop cost. I also think the preflop cost of MRing 100% On the Bttn is too high for a player who is not at a post flop advantage.

In other words, i think you would be better off only using the MR bttn 100% against players who play worse than you after the flop (Of course, it may be best to MR against a player who is better than you if he defends incorrectly to MR but correctly to other strat)

I would think it usually is incorrect for both players to MR bttn 100%. If you are at a post flop disadvantage but you decide to play anyway (this would usually take place in a tourney i guess, but not always) You should not MR bttn 100%. Not against a player who has a better post flop game than you do. If you are exactly evenly matched in skill then "my MR100 theory" is silent.

I, however, do suspect it would be a mistake to MR bttn 100% vs an equally matched player but I wouldn't go too far in defending that stance. (MRing does help you leverage your positional advantage).

So that's how i see it, good playes MR their buttons frequently, and they should. But i don't see the MR as a strong strat in a vacuum. I think good players are, naturally, better after the flop than most of their opponents. If you have a post flop edge, combined with position, then it may make perfect sense to use the MR 100 strat. That doesn't mean that the MR100 strat must be optimal, or even correct.

So i'm considering MR100 against players who have shown me that they make a lot of mistakes post flop, but i am not ready to make it my standard button open.

Thoughts??

You're wrong. Position?

If you watch any competent midstakes+ match (and even 200nl) with 2 regs it's very likely both will be min opening close to 100%. In fact I'd go as far to say that against someone decent 3xing 100bb deep in HU is actually a leak. You can obviously still win that way and if you play micros you do have to take into the account that this will lead to paying more rake and that might make it worse, but in general when two good players play it's almost exclusively minraising. Just open up the mid/high stakes HU lobby and see if there's a reg battle going on. I guarantee it will be min opens at least 90% of the time (and if it's not most likely they both have an agreement to not minr).

only 450 words??

wtf dude ur gettin weak

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...

But my theory predicts that or at leasts explains why it might be going on even though it's not actually correct.

I feel like the player with the post flop skill advantage might prefer a MR strat and the player who is at a disadvantage should prefer building bigger pots preflop/limiting the # of flops they take. Isn't it possible, even extreemely likely, that both of the players who are playing in your example believe they are the better player? That's usually the reason to play right?, you believe you have a + expectation.


If you had 1 month to teach someone who'd never played HU poker before and then send them out to challenge Phil Ivy to a million dollar HU match, would you explain to them that they want to make MR's on the button because it allows them to leverage there positional advantage? Or would you advise them to raise higher as standard?
Can't we then extrapolate from that and find evidence to support what I'm saying?

i am still awaiting the day that i finish reading one of your posts...

Your argument is more tailored towards sng play i would have thought since if I am understanding your logic you are looking to create more variance and a lower stack to pot ratio in games where you don't have edge. The problem is your making the average pot size bigger as well. I would rather make my pf open size based on how someone is playing rather than how good they are. The Ivey example may not be the best one since 3xing is probably a viable option vs him but for different reasons

Well put, it seems you do understand at least part of my point.
But that is just one part. If the logic holds for SnG's where you face an opponent who is better than you after the flop then it at least shows one instance where MR100 is not optimal. That's as far as I wanted to get with that example.
My point really is that the "MR100 Strat" is not in itself optimal play, it requires specific conditions in order to be a good strategy. Specifically it requires that you have a suficient post flop edge vs the player you use it against.
It seems to me that the point of MRing is to incourage post flop action and keep the pots small allowing you to leverage your skill edge and your position.
The question is "how much does this cost you, if anything at all".
If you hold a hand that is much stronger than most hands your opponent would be willing to defend with vs 3X raise then you cost yourself some EV preflop when you fail to charge your opponent the max to draw against you. When you hold a weakish hand you are giving up fold equity and not allowing them to make a mistake before the flop.
So both of those situations cause you to give up some amount of profit before the flop in hopes that you can make up for it after the flop by leveraging your skill and position.
And what if you don't have a very big skill advantage? Clearly both players in a HU match cannot have a post flop skill advantage.
So I just wonder if you would be better off only using a MR bttn 100% strat against a player who you hold a significant advantage over post flop.

Sorry, i really do try to balance economy vs getting my point across. I actually thought this OP was a little bit smaller and more accessible. I have heard that complaint before and I will work on it.