This save you money if you're bad and end up playing less hands per orbit.

Let's say a game was constructed where at any point I had to put $10 of money in the pot... and whatever I put in on a particular hand, I got that discounted from the preflop action... just like a blind works.

I would choose to put all $10 in on my buttons. You go right ahead and choose to put $5 in from the traditional SB, and $5 in from the traditional BB... now think about who comes out ahead?

.. second best choice is $10 in from the CO

.. worst choice is to divide it up in early positions

***
Don't confuse that with the "skip my blinds" and post in CO question... the point I am debating is how a blind posted later is superior to a blind earlier... and I still agree that the effect is far from making up for missing hands, especially BTN.

Now start adding in other aspects..


If others are still putting in SB/BB.. I have a bigger pot in my CO than I would normally... +EV

If it is a 5/5 game.. and I can straddle in CO for $10 rather than post, I act last pre, even more +EV...

The loss of BTN is so huge though, but this strat isn't directly as bad as you are asserting though

*math I did screw up (twice).. we would miss 3 hands... I first said one hand, then two hands - so I got that wrong.

Let me make an attempt.

Assuming we are -2bb in BB and -3.5bb in SB over large sample, we're essentially -5.5bb in the blinds.

So if we are +5bb in the button, we are technically +.5bb every orbit.

However, in those orbits that we are trading button for not having to play SB/BB, we are also playing CO blind.

Couple of scenarios:

We post 1.5bb in CO, and we happen to be dealt the same range that we would limp or raise in this spot - no harm.

We post 1.5bb in CO, and we are dealt garbage that we would normally fold - we lose money. Assuming we're decent post flop and we recover 50% of the 1.5bb dead blinds, we're still at -.75bb.

Altogether using above assumptions (keep in mind that these scenarios only take place when we purposely miss blinds and post in CO):

-By trading button to not play blinds, we are +0.5bb.
-By playing CO involuntarily at -1.5bb, even if we're able to recover 50%, we're at -0.75bb.

Combining both, we're actually at -0.25bb.

There are a lot of assumptions in place, but I think we can at least make some worthwhile speculations.

funny thing is that we actually strike an entire hand from everyone if we skip both of our blinds... (the one that would have been our BTN)... it actually costs the other players some EV for us to do this?

FWIW - any dead money is terrible... this comparison should assume live posts (discounts).

Agree the practice of this would be quite silly but the theory is cool.

Ikes, am I reading what you are saying correctly? Basically I read what you are saying as "your blinds are your blinds and wherever you post them you are still posting blind money"

I mean if I am reading/misunderstanding I apologize but that's what I get from your few posts.

Agree losing the button is massive obviously.

It's absolutely correct.

Your range played from position X changes based on the posted money (it becomes wider because of the discount)

There are two things to debate:

*one
if every opponent and hero played absolutely perfect poker - would one person benefit from being allowed to put post money in from late position while others posted from EP?

To me this is clearly, yes, the EV advantage is to the late poster. For some *undebatable* reasons:
- bigger seed pot for hero in LP (traditional blinds + his post)
- discount for hero in those bigger seed pots

And some debatable reasons:
- the widened range produces more bonus EV on later streets when acting later than the opponents.

... the second reason is debatable because you could argue the range only widens in a neutral EV manner.. but I believe that it is actually a compounding effect where there is probably a higher WR to realize with more hands played post flop IP.

*Second debate...
Now, some actual application (non ideal opponents)
- because every pot is seeded bigger and opponents are attacking a late post - they will be opening bigger... this is clearly +EV when they are opening ahead of us.

~~

This is very similar to BTN straddle debate, except this debate about "where would I post my blinds" has no downside if it is purely a choice on position. So you end up playing higher stakes when you are in position and lower stakes when you are out of position.

Now - the debatable side again - everyone in practice is going to be better off with a wider range than traditional in late position than they are in EP.. A practical reason why "if given the choice" - posting from LP would be better.

But I really will not concede there is any debate about seed pot size for hero in LP.. that is inarguable IMO, +EV if hero is the only one posting later.

Taken to the extreme...

Let's play a heads up game where we both post $5 on my BTN, and both post $0 on your BTN?

... now step closer to the actual debate

What if we played heads up and we posted $4 each on my BTN and $1 each on your BTN? ...

see?

Yes I see bip. And the example is completely irrelevant in a 9 or 10 handed game. The difference, if any at all, is microscopic.

Blackjack equivalent.

I thought op was saying he pays and plays his bb.

He sits out his sb.

He posts the sb and gets the button the next hand.


At my casino we can do this. Nobody abuses it but if you get up after folding your bb and come back after missing 1 hand, you post the sb and get the button.

I will also assert that the "post penalty" is less in any spot where you would naturally be playing a wider range.

So if we assume there is inherent WR-pos-[1/2/3/4/..] .. and loss rate POST

Ike asserts posting from any position yields a WR of:

WR-pos-x minus LR-POST

This is false... even if you believe WR-pos-x is unaffected by the discount, then how can you say at the same time that LR-POST remains constant?

Naturally being able to play more hands decreases that LR-POST because you simply folded less.

The discount and the post-loss are seperate - and the discount has a different effect in later position than it does in EP... so you can look at it as WR increase because of a discount MINUS a constant POST-LOSS
-or-
WR constant.. but then POST-LOSS is implied to be different because you surrender less.

I get what Ike is asserting, but the WR-pos-x and POST-LOSS very fundamentally do not both remain constant when the "discount" affect is considered in each position

Bring 8 friends.. we will still play this way.. the effect is huge

go ahead and skip 3 hands then

10handed4rollz!

. Well played... I concede that debate

The casino where I play at will NOT allow you to button straddle as you post your dead money, for the obvious reason that you get to straddle for half the price.

Wouldn't it be more profitable to just shove AA from the blinds, fold everything else, and play our button/co normally? I'm missing something here...

Thank you for your attempt to stop the derail.

If you're a mediocre player like myself, you should be able to reduce your loss from the SB if you folded every hand from 0.5BB/orbit to 0.25BB. If you are a poker god like mpethy, you can actually be profitable in the SB. If you post it on the button, the money is dead in the pot. In order to recover the dead money, you have to win the pot. In order for it to be better than just playing the SB, you have to win the hand over 50% of the time you're dealt OTB. That's just not going to happen. Note that since it is dead money, it doesn't reduce the amount of your call or bet at all pf.

I've seen someone do this and as soon as the table figured it out and he did it a few times we called the floor. Floor told player this was not allowed and if he did so again he would be asked to leave.

I think that's not quite true; with the extra dead money in the starting pot, the average pot size in your button hands (minus that extra dead money) will still be slightly larger than average due to the geometric increase in pot size throughout a hand. Basically, you're playing slightly larger pots in the position where you have the highest winrate. Perhaps this effect is trivial, I haven't done any math on it, but it seems like it has to exist...

Here's one of the caveats I run into with my logic here:

On a 10-person table, you're essentially paying $3 to see 10 hands a round. However, if you sit out the SB, then come back to play your button and post the SB on the button, you're seeing only 9 hands a round for the same cost of $3.

However, in those 9 hands, you have the opportunity to win a total of $28 total as opposed to $30 total in ten hands, hence the hidden cost of failing to post n play your small blind: in the long run, you play fewer hands and get a chance to win less money for the same cost, meaning that your button or late position posts would have to have a winrate value add high enough to at least offset the automatic $2 loss per round.

This would indicate that for a player who has a very little variance in his/her winrate based on position, this would be a long-run EV- move. However, if your winrate variance is skewed disproportionally towards late positions, then doing this SB sit-out move could very likely be EV+ in the long run.

Can someone produce for me a bar graph of your winrates from each position in a 9 or 10-handed table? I believe you could do a theoretical analysis based on how much you'd lose from the SB and how much your profit would be increased by the bloating of the pot pre-shuffle on the button by identifying a variance factor correlating your winrate to pre-shuffle pot size.