Interesting part is that he's arguing against a well known nit and taking a nittier side.

1/2 games are basically no blinds game. Just think about that for a moment and how only playing premium hands in 1/2 games makes little sense.

The math of the game breaks down when you start talking about no blind games, but in practice at low stakes they make up such a small percentage of the final pot that they don't really matter as much as stack size and opponent tendencies. Smaller blinds relative to pot sizes opens up the types of strategies that can be profitable, like playing extra nitty, as it's indicative of players making fundamental mistakes.

In the hypothetical example, I am playing QQ in MP because I know people will still want to see a flop with their speculative hand, and will pay to do it. I don't HAVE to play QQ to turn a profit in this game, but if people still call preflop like they do at 1/2 then playing is more profitable than folding.

Once games hit about 3-500BB deep stack depth becomes mostly irrelevant. You could probably make some sick bluffs with nutblockers, but that's about it.

Fundamentally, the game of poker is about trying to win the money that's already in the pot. There is no incentive to enter the pot at all in a no blinds game because you are risking something to win nothing. Opponents can wait forever until they have AA, jam on you and there's absolutely nothing you can do about it except adopt the same strategy of waiting for AA.

Of course, this is just theory assuming our opponents are non-idiots. In practice you'd probably have some clueless fish willing to put money in without AA, which in turn gives you an incentive to play hands that aren't AA.

A super deep-stack game is nothing like a no-blind game unless people are idiots and choose to pretend the blinds don't exist and raise to ridiculous amounts. In a 1 million BB game the goal is still to win that 1.5BB in the middle.

A 1MBB game probably wouldn't play that much different than a 1000BB game. At some point people just aren't putting more money in without the nuts.

Actually the game of poker, for most part, is about trying to win money that isn't already in the pot.

I do not put in $25 with the simple goal of winning $3 and $5 blinds.

I do not call a bet of $60 with top set on the flop with the simple goal of winning $150 in the pot.

If your opponents only wait for AA to jam and do nothing else, then you shouldn't play this game.

It's pretty obvious why and how it is not a practical scenario.

You're making the incorrect association that every hand must be for stack.

There are plenty of money to be made.

There is also this:

https://twitter.com/Joeingram1/statu...29438786764800

Then you and I have a fundamental disagreement. (Tanq has already explained why)

GcluelessNLnoobG

Do you understand I am talking about theory?

You're picking a specific rare hand to fit your narrative. You don't just have top set. You have a range. You play your range in such a way to maximize your pot share. Our ability to bluff is leveraged by the fact that we can have strong hands like sets, and our opponents only have incentive to give action to our monsters because we can be bluffing. Only against really, really bad players do you regularly win more than the pot with your range. Like worse than live 1|2 levels of bad, unless you're playing some kind of horrible ABC-nit strat and people don't realize they should always fold when you bet.

There's no reason to bluff without blinds because there's nothing to bluff for, and therefore no reason for our opponents to call us because we always have it. The game completely falls apart.

It's impractical because waiting for AA just to get no action with it is boring and nobody would want to play this game.

I don't believe anything I've said indicates this and I absolutely don't think this.

Says the guy who's probably never studied game theory (Theory of Poker is not a theory book)

I'm not sure how this is an out?

This is a LLSNL forum. That's what we're playing here.

So in this particular example (due to the OP's question), we'll make the blinds really small in respect to the stack sizes; in fact let's just make them $0. And there's even a 10% rake up to $8 with a $1 BBJ drop when the pot reaches $20 plus typically a $1 tip.

Dude is sitting with a $200 UTG and limps in for his $0. You've played with him a bunch of times and he seems like a pretty poor player; this isn't too far fetched a read for a LLSNL game, right?

It folds to you on the Button and you look down at T9s. Maybe ATs. Maybe 77. Maybe QQ. Maybe AA.

You're folding cuz there's no money in the pot?

GnotfoldinganyofthesehandsG

It is partial at best. That is why there is something called "effective stack."

You're completely missing the point.

If your "theory" is correct, then implied value has no value, because you are only calculating what is in the pot.

And if that's the case, there is going to be very very few scenarios to call any draws.

If you are advocating that poker is all about playing made hands, then you are very wrong, my friend.

You are:

Those two statements are pretty indicative that you think players are only going to play premium hands and only with nuts.

Makes no sense if players are sitting on $1,000,000 and playing the same range for both $1,000,000 and $10.

But if that's actually what you are suggesting, then we got some other big fundamental issues.

Well, we're talking about games that don't exist so I'm not sure how we can speculate about how they would play, but I can tell you exactly how a no blinds game *should* play. Everyone folds every hand, realizes it's stupid and then plays a real game with blinds/antes. Alternatively, fish play hands that aren't the nuts, nits destroy them until they lose all their money or quit, and the nits realize the game is pointless to play against each other and they start a game with antes/blinds.

To answer your last question, if I can limp for free I guess I'll call and hope my opponent puts money in the pot without the nuts?

Feels like you're not making an effort to understand my posts.

Individual combos can win more than the pot (IO), but complete ranges don't.

This is exactly why I feel you're not trying to understand my posts. You are misrepresenting my argument (I'm sure unintentionally). I said people aren't putting *more* money without the nuts "at some point."

You are not obligated to put stacks into play whenever you want to play a hand, but if someone voluntarily puts 1000BB in they probably (correctly) only have the nuts in most situations.

I'm tired of this discussion. Probably not going to reply to this derail anymore.

You're making absolute statements and I don't understand what you are implying?

And somehow you are suggesting that there is IO, as in money not in the pot?

FWIW, you are not making your posts clear. I have no idea what you are trying to say except that only thing that matters in poker is trying to win what is already in the pot.

That is just outright false.

But the vast majority of the players already lose? They know this full well, even with the guise of the blinds as enticement in the pot, even with the knowledge all winnings will be partly decimated by the oncoming rake. And yet they still play. And so do we. And they still get money in without the nuts. And so do we (especially on early streets thanks to IO). And they lose. And we win. This whole profitable situation doesn't fall apart for us just cuz we start making the blinds even less meaningless to the stack sizes (than they arguably already are).

Obviously if everyone is going to theoretically play perfect then it makes no sense to play in this game. But if everyone is going to theoretically play perfect, then it makes no sense to play in the game as we know it now thanks to the rake (which would guarantee everyone would lose).

GI'llbowoutthough,asIdoubtOPintendedforthreadtogod ownthisroadG