u wont believe how many ims i got from ppl saying this exact same thing, then trying to tell me i suck at math. id venture to guess i know the math better than just about anyone who decides to post math vacuum crap in hsnl threads. believe it or dont, theres a LOT more that goes into beating HU nl than raising x amount of hands pf. believe it or not, theres more than 2 ways to play a button, and believe it or not, the way you play preflop effects how people play against you post flop. jump out of the box for 5 seconds before spaz iming me how i suck at poker.

also going on a limb here to say i dont believe you fold >50%, just that you open raise <50%, right?

You missed my second edit. Either way, I don't see how you think I'm trying to insult you. I think we can both agree that someone folding >50% of their buttons is going to be a loser HU vs a decent player, and if you agreed to do so I'd give you unlimited action HU at stakes I was comfortable with.

u suck at poker (per my im)

LOL.

Where's the idiots when you need them to make sure MDMA is soured from 2p2 and stops teaching people for free...

It just happens to be the case that according to your own assumptions 3-betting OOP with 80% of your hands is impossibly good. Which is a little bit funny, since you draw the exact opposite conclusion.

Obviously, but you can draw inferences about suggested quantifications as well as falsify a lot of them by looking at push-or-fold scenarios and other techniques for deriving treshold values limiting that advantage upwards or downwards.

For instance, the consequence of your assertion that equal hand ranges result in better than 60-40 to the button inevitably means it must be right for the button to never fold preflop for a pot reraise and open 100% of his hands. This due to the fact that the button only needs 33% in real equity to call a re raise, and if positional advantage is big enough to move 50-50 to 60-40 it certainly can move crap hands the few points needed towards 33%.

You can't have the first being true without the second being true.

Personally I think the probability of the second proposition being true is very, very low, which is why I rejected your reasoning.

It's likely that reraising 80% of your hands against someone opening isn't a very good response, and almost certainly not the best. But either your's or Xorbie's reasoning does anything to address that issue.

Anyway, **** it, it all comes down to reads, so not much point debating abstract models.

I think you are extrapolating an argument incorrectly. It's not that equity always tilts 60/40 or whatever, it's just that if someone is 3betting the top 80% of their range then yes, the fact that I have position and have the top 80% of my range WILL tilt things that wide because when you have hands like J2s and K5o in your range, there is simply no profitable way to play. If we both have a range like TT+, AQ+, suited connectors, the advantage of position is somewhat nullified by the fact that the OOP player has such a strong hand range that he can easily see showdown very frequently, and thus fully realize his showdown equity.

When you are giving up OOP, you end up having to c/f a lot. This means you lose all your equity in the pot. When you give up in position, you end up seeing another card, which means even if you have just 3 outs, you have a 6% chance of winning. That's ignoring the added advantage of being given information by having villain check to you, the fact that you can value bet more easily, etc etc

We all know the value of position. Quantifying it is going to be hard, but I can say given my experience that when your range is more or less a back of dicks you are going to be spewing money OOP. We can make some attempt to model this just by looking at PT. I don't have a lot of hands, but I w%wsf 55% of the time on the button, despite the fact that the other person normally has a much tighter hand range and I'm only winning 40% of showdowns. You are talking about someone possibly still winning 45% of the time despite doubling their range size by adding tons of weak hands. Not possible.

I bow to your superior wisdom. Consider me pwned.

Haha, oh my god, I can't decide whether this quote or the one where you called EC10 a heads-up specialist is the funniest. In any case, I'm dying of laughter in 3...2...1...

Where do I draw the exact opposite conclusion?

And which of my assertions do you exactly mean by "first assertion" and "second proposition"?

Too much fuzzy #s in this thread...

Lets just talk about how raptor sucks at poker and how nycballer was right all along that feel is more important than the maths.

First I'd like to say you shouldn't ignore experience (like EC says). If you say his argument is just from authority why don't you try it for yourself.
Besides, the math I see in this thread is so not applicable. I mean, come on, are you serious on the .5 bb +EV pf? You do realize you rarely show down with 72o even if you're ahead right?
Opening every hand from the button just makes it easier for your opponent to play back at you postflop. The big bets are made postflop and they make the microscopic preflop equity advantage worth nothing.

this is incredibly flawed thinking

You're ofcourse a way better player but can you tell me it's so flawed? (excuse my english)

In regards to opening a huge range HU the argument that it would show some sort of profit is pretty strong. The pot is laying you 1.5:2.5 on a pot sized raise, so if you pick up the blinds more than 63% of the time you show an immediate profit. If you do start playing an extremely large range of hands you do put your opponent in a pinch where he can either give up a lot of tiny pots or play a lot of hands OOP.

All that being said, however, it would not make sense to give up some sort of big-pot-crushing edge for a blind-stealing edge if for some reason the two were not compatible. In the prior we're talking about an edge that likely causes your opponent to make mistakes worth a fraction of their stack and in the later we're talking about an edge that causes them to make mistakes worth a fraction of a blind. It may be entirely possible that you could have both, but that's just conjecture on my part.

maybe it is, maybe it isn't, but just saying something like this does absolutely nothing for this thread.

tc

the simple answer is +.5 bb every hand HU is an enormous edge, so anyone foolish enough to pass on that cannot win. At 10/20 that 10$/hand. Wow.

you're right, sorry

about above:

"Besides, the math I see in this thread is so not applicable."
It very much IS applicable

"ou do realize you rarely show down with 72o even if you're ahead right? "
This is very much NOT applicable

"e big bets are made postflop and they make the microscopic preflop equity advantage worth nothing."
Well, no. If you cede every small pot you better win EVERY big pot. Those small pots are the lifeblood of HU

ok so the next question people may like to know/answer is do you ever call a 4 bet with this ****e?

OK so piggybacking off this and what MDMA wrote - you're assuming that opening the button nearly all if not all of the time will show you an immediate profit, and an implied profit because it will juice up your stronger hands based on psychology and rational counter-adjustments by both thinking and non-thinking players.

Now, take a look at the various types of players, from loose-passive to extremely skilled, and tell me that this strategy holds up against fluidly adjusting extremely skilled players - or even average to above average TAGs who have lots of experience playing heads up and thinking about counter-strategies (the often-hated nycballer comes to mind - he has no mind for theory but he would filet a lot of people who understand the theoretical argument for opening every button but don't have enough experience or natural poker ability to adjust past a basic counter-strategy).

With that said, what about the extremely skilled player who opens 100% of his buttons and ALSO has lots of experience that will help him win pots with hands like 27o when he shouldn't be (ike is a good example without breaking down his game here!). Well, he's extremely skilled for a reason, and it's not because he opens every button.

This is getting kind of circular now and I'm losing my train of thought, but what I'm trying to say is that yes, opening every button is profitable. Until it isn't. Against some players, when you don't have enough experience playing postflop and knowing how your opponent thinks, it just never will be.

Obviously not.

KRANTZ,

You are playing yourself HU. Do you open 100% of buttons or no? Because my answer for me is yes, and my point is simply that it should be the same for everyone else.

i would love to get stoned with you. my answer to that question is that i won't ever be able to play myself.

Wow... I just found the StoxEV thing. I think I'm going to get ripped and play around with this for the next few days. This is ridiculous. I'm going to be opening 110% of hands pretty soon this so awesome.

I propose an empirical experiment wherein Krantz and CTS play 100k hands HU with 100% SB VPIPs and we sweat the PT results. Get cracking