Err, really on the blinds.

Somewhere in a recent post, I believe Dem (?) stated that winners attack the blinds more often.

Could you clarify any mistake I have made here, and offer some proof/ideas/strategy on this concept?

In tournament play I guess it is important. In ring its really not at low limits.

Most people play pretty poorly, so if its folded to you in LP you can raise with any 2 because you simply know you will outplay the player in the BB every hand.

Bonch, i was asking the original poster (Dem?) who said he had numerical data proving this.

<3 I missed 3 days, bite me

Originally Posted by bonchkid

Most people play pretty poorly, so if its folded to you in LP you can raise with any 2 because you simply know you will outplay the player in the BB every hand.

What kind of logic is that?

Anyhow, just an interesting thing that Tom McEvoy and T.J. Cloutier came up with - if everyone folds to the button, it reasons to stand that the players left must have a slightly decent hand, since everyone folded - that probability suggests they may have a decent hand since nobody else has... just something to think about while playing.

For me, I will often steal the blinds if they are both tight (i don't care about weak/agressive because ill check/fold if they call) and shortstacked, and then only if I have a decent hand. And ill only do this late in the tourney.

Its called the bunching theory, sklansky refers to it every now and then.

No it makes sense though if you think about it, if everyone else folds, it stands to reason they must have a better chance of having a decent hand rather than having 5 callers before them.. I'm not saying they have AA or anything, but still..

I dont think anybody has been able to prove it mathmatecaly yet though, but it does stand to reason, intuitively that is...