Are there any specific hands which are more profitable to play OOP, e. g. because I can show aggression first?

Or is absolutely every hand more profitable when played IP?

range advantage has more impact on EVs than position. So if you assume fixed ranges and now wanna swop positions than every hands benefits from playing in position yes.

more profitable ip every time

Heads up gets a little weird, but even HU, all the solvers have confirmed, in position is always better for any range.

This is because ranges always have a linear quality, even when you alter them to have some polarity. The value range is always stronger in position, and this outweighs any speculative polar combos that might make a little more as checkraise traps than standard positional c-bets.

Think of a particular hand, and imagine it oop versus ip, and try to justify it being BETTER to have out of position, and you will get your answer.

Against certain players you definitely sometimes have more of an advantage by being OOP -

For example, a villain could always fold to donks, or he could always bet IP and never fold to raises.

Against these sort of players there are specific hands which you would prefer to have oop. If he is going to fold to the donk you will prefer to play improving hands oop against him. If he is going to call your raise regardless of his holding, it is good to play stronger value hands oop.

In general though, being in position gives us an advantage, and so if we omit the opponent from the equation there will be no hands that we would prefer to hold oop. Just like there is no size chip stack which we would prefer to have oop. Being IP strengthens us. Simple.

None of this inherently makes being out of position more preferable to in postion.

People that fold or call too much do so regardless of position.

Say for example you're against the folder.

Scenario 1 you have a weak draw oop. You have no information and are betting into a potentially uncapped range.

Contrast with

Scenario 2. Same situation but now you are ip. Now you can see when villain checks altering his range and decide to bet when it's probably more profitable or have a free shot at making your draw.

Either scenario can be plus EV but only one of them all but guarantees it to be +EV.


Sent from my SM-G900R4 using Tapatalk

You chat nonsense lol.

What an amazing post.

Surely you guys get demoralized following me around trying to discredit everything I say. It never works, have you noticed?? Do you not feel bad for spewing over yet another persons perfectly legitimate thread???

JustGrindings post was nonsense, as usual. If the opponent folds to donks it's obvious that we can play hands OOP which we might not be able to play IP. "People who fold too much do so regardless of position" Hahaha, what a load of nonsense, almost all players fold different amounts in different positions. This was just another lame attempt to discredit what I say.

I explain things that are way beyond the majority of the regular posters here, but that doesn't mean I'm wrong, it means something else lol.

There are always exceptions, but the examples provided in this thread don't disprove the general statement here:

Lol, alright then Bob!

Why don't you share some of those examples. I'm going for dinner.

If we're speaking about the profitability of individual hand combinations realized when good players face off, then clearly the later the open raiser's position, the higher that combination's ev will be.

If we're making up fictional opponents that do unrealistic stuff like fold to donk bets at a ridiculously high frequency, then sure, give me 54s in the big blind and I'll expect to win more money from that position than I would from the button with that same hand.

I prefer playing 1bb deep when I'm OOP.
Villain's positional advantage evaporates when the threat of multiple streets of betting is non-existent. I think particularly short stack depths can reduce the positional advantage down to 'no advantage at all'.

You are posting on a public Internet forum. People are going to respond to you. I don't actively follow you around you just happen to post in a forum I frequent and say things I disagree with. Sometimes I choose to respond and sometimes I don't.

The real problem seems to be your identity is wrapped up in being the smartest person in the room. You can't take any critique or help from outside or admit when you are wrong. You often leave out any concrete evidence or logical inferences in your arguments so you can shift the goal posts later (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moving_the_goalposts) and maintain your ego or persona. If that doesn't work you often just dismiss the argument as if it is invalid though provide no evidence or argument to the contrary except an appeal to authority (you) which can't be verified as an actual authority on the subject.

It is so agregious you think minor disagreements are some how personal attacks against you. Admittedly you do get trolled by some people but that's really just the price you pay for participatin in an Internet community.


I certainly don't like those qualities about you but it doesn't give me a reason to follow you and argue against positions I would otherwise agree with.


I am going to craft a separate post to address my response to this and your initial assertion that being OOP is more beneficial in certain situations. This post is getting too long as is.


Idk even know what to say here. It's nonsense because you say so? All I was trying to say is a player that folds too much does so regardless of position. A player that is over aggressive is typically so regardless of position. I am specifically talking about frequency here not absolute number of hands, though being positionally aware usually comes with understanding the value of the hands relative to your position.

See above. I honestly don't care who is right or wrong between us. I post something when I disagree with what you say. Since you rarely provide counter evidence or logical deductions that support your claims or discredit my claims it's hard for me to say "oh you're right I am wrong" on most of the topics we disagree on.

Exhibit A for my comments about your ego. I think you are suffering from a case of "you don't know what you don't know" (https://engli******ackexchange.com/q...-you-dont-know) in terms of your cognitive abilities compared to other posters on this website.


Sent from my SM-G900R4 using Tapatalk

You don't explain things at all.

Interestingly, some hands are profitable calls in the big blind facing a button raise; the poorest of such hands would not be profitable even on the button; this isn't due to any advantage of being out of position but rather it's due to the discounted price we get in the blind.

If I'm not mistaken in the Tartanian 7 database (the precursor to Libratus), the 99+ hands had higher ev OOP. But looking at specific hand ev is pointless because an individual hand's ev depends on what range it finds itself in. If OOP you only 3bet QQ-AA and 65s then of course 65s would have a higher ev OOP.

As to why 99+ has higher ev OOP I assume it's because these are the hands that always get 3bet and because HU you 3bet a very wide range, IP is forced to call a lot and give a lot of ev to these hands. But again the specific hands that grab the most ev is meaningless, what matters is the range ev.

"Is having less strategic options ever better than having more?"

uhh....

Lol, nice try bob, it took you about a week and you didn't even work one out. My examples were good.

Against certain players it is often better to have certain hands OOP.

For example - AA is better OOP when we're the aggressor and are against a player who goes mental vs missed Cbets.

"Thanks Yadi", no worries 2+2.

That isn't an example of a hand that plays better OOP than IP. That's an example of a hand that plays better OOP than IP against a very particular kind of player.

The OP is asking for classifications of hands that play better IP, sans any other information about the player.

You might be able to offer the notion that some player pools have distributions of players such that there might be such cases. But the theoretical existence of a player that breaks the general rule is not an answer to the question.

Yeah. It's pretty straight-forward. You have different options when OOP.

- - Yadi 974, everyone else 4 - -

You guys should be able to tip me money... "Thanks again Yadi". No worries 2+2. You know, I do need a pay-rise. I think my time at this site could be coming to an end.

The OP didn't specify, and I did answer that in my first post.................. You didn't like my examples rusty? Gosh darn it! I should have described the player pools instead of the players! I just thought that giving away some awesome exploitative plays would be nice.

This makes sense to me and I retract my original statement.

The ranges EV isn't important to a normal exploitative player. And its easy to work out how much you will make from a hand without considering your actual range.

That was a GTO answer. GTO has taken over this site. You're all mad on it.

It's not like you've found some magic formula. No one actually disputes that you can make more from people making mistakes if you exploit those mistakes. But almost none of the questions in this forum are asking about that. This makes all your posts non-responsive and unhelpful.