I'll come back to this later, David, but Tommy Angelo's point is not necessarily correct. The extent to which you fold/defend blinds has to be a function of the percentage of times people try to steal your blinds. Unless their percentage of attempted steals is perfect (the so-called saddle-point, as mentioned by Fox in "Sleep till noon") then you have an optimal strategy of blind defence that consists of defending some hands and folding others.
Suppose, for example, that your opponent always raised on the button if he was first in, no matter what he held. In this extreme scenario, a defence with 74o is correct and a reraise is right with about 25% of hands (I'm kind of guessing that percentage, btw. Like I say, my blinds play needs work).
Now, suppose he only raised first in on the button with grade 1 or grade 2 hands? In this case, defending with 74o is suicide.
Clearly, 99% of cases are far more blurred than this. You have incomplete information here there and everywhere.
Angelo's post is a good post for habitual blind defenders, but it is only part of the story. Blind defence is a game of continual adaptation to prevailing mores.
Re: It's not variance or cheating...
Date: 2006-02-27 01:21 pm (UTC)Suppose, for example, that your opponent always raised on the button if he was first in, no matter what he held. In this extreme scenario, a defence with 74o is correct and a reraise is right with about 25% of hands (I'm kind of guessing that percentage, btw. Like I say, my blinds play needs work).
Now, suppose he only raised first in on the button with grade 1 or grade 2 hands? In this case, defending with 74o is suicide.
Clearly, 99% of cases are far more blurred than this. You have incomplete information here there and everywhere.
Angelo's post is a good post for habitual blind defenders, but it is only part of the story. Blind defence is a game of continual adaptation to prevailing mores.
Like, as if I know anything about it.
PJ