The poker community is flooded with an abundance of strategies and advice. Each player, instructor, and educational platform presents their unique viewpoint. Unfortunately, these perspectives can vary significantly from one another. poker player Upon closer examination, many commonly accepted notions in the poker world can be proven to be incorrect.
This piece by 888poker is focused on debunking the top five myths in preflop play.
Myth No. 1 – Avoid Cold Calling from the Small Blind preflop myths in poker.
There's a widespread belief among players that making a call from the small blind is never advisable.
The Myth
The rationale often cited includes several key points: small blind when facing an open raise.
It's considered a poor tactic since the big blind might apply pressure with a squeeze play.
- According to GTO (game theory optimal) strategies, small blind ranges do not typically allow for cold calling.
- It's pretty logical for players to conclude that cold calling from the small blind is detrimental when their GTO models exclude it altogether.
We must delve into the reasons behind the lack of cold calling included in many preflop range solutions.
The Truth
Generally, this is because the models utilized employed a game tree structure that omitted the option to cold call from the small blind, primarily to optimize the use of memory resources (RAM) during the computations.
In straightforward terms, the reason the solver doesn’t permit cold calls from the small blind is not due to its undesirability, but because it wasn’t an option offered during calculations.
Recently developed solvers have started incorporating the possibility of cold calling from the small blind. When this option is provided, solvers frequently opt to include certain hands as cold calls. GTO-based While some successful players choose not to include a cold calling range from the small blind, this remains a valid strategic choice, often seen as a way to streamline their gameplay, rather than a strict GTO approach.
Typically, the cold calling range for a solver from the small blind does not tend to be very expansive regardless. Focusing solely on three-betting in these contexts may not have a significant impact on winning rates.
Strategy Advice
Nevertheless, against smaller raises (like min raises) and opens from late positions (especially the button), a cold call from the small blind can be quite beneficial; limiting play to three-bets in these instances may not always be the optimal strategy.
Myth No. 2 – Three-betting Aggressively Minimizes Rake Costs
At the micro stakes online games, the rake tends to be the highest. Even though rake is essential for the poker room's operation, players naturally prefer to minimize their costs. GTO solver A belief has emerged suggesting that aggressive three-betting can lead to lower rake payments.
The underlying logic is based on the concept that pots concluding preflop do not incur rake. By ending more pots before the flop, players could potentially face a reduced rake overall.
The Myth
This notion gained traction thanks to endorsements from numerous prominent players and training platforms. But does it hold any validity?
Upon scrutiny, this popular idea collapses rapidly under basic analytical principles. rake Let's break it down with a simplified scenario where we assume a poker room charges a 5% rake on all pots that make it to the flop—excluding any possible rake cap for simplicity.
Let’s establish a few approximate metrics:
The Truth
Typical villain fold frequency to a three-bet is around 50%.
Analysis method 1 – basic math
Average pot size after a hero cold calls: approximately 5.5bb.
Average pot size when a hero’s three-bet attracts a call: around 20bb.
- When we opt for a three-bet preflop, we engage in a 20bb pot half the time, equating to effectively playing a 10bb pot every time.
- Conversely, if we choose to cold call, we'll find ourselves playing a 5.5bb pot consistently.
- Which size incurs a greater rake? Is it 5% of a 5.5bb pot or 5% of a 10bb pot? It should be clear—the three-bet results in a higher rake, even if the opponent sometimes decides to fold.
Analysis method 2 – empirical evaluation
Some players remain doubtful even after crunching the numbers.
However, empirical data from poker tracking software verifies that players who engage in aggressive preflop three-betting tend to generate significantly more rake than those who primarily opt for cold calls.
This straightforward conclusion raises an important question: why do some advanced players cling to the belief that aggressive three-betting leads to reduced rake payments?
The quest to minimize rake cannot justify the exclusion of critical three-bets from our repertoire. We should embrace aggressive three-betting preflop, even if it means paying higher rake.
The rationale is that despite the increased rake cost, the expected value of aggressive three-betting still surpasses overall outcomes.
Solver results also reinforce that aggressive three-betting is advisable in high-rake scenarios in comparison to those with lower rake charges.
Strategy Advice
In summary, while being aggressive with three-bets in a high rake environment is indeed beneficial, the rationale that it lessens rake costs is a misconception (three-betting aggressively does not reduce rake).
The true justification for embracing this strategy is that it enhances our overall win rate in high-rake situations.
Myth No. 3 – Large 3-bets From the Blinds Yield Greater EV (Expected Value)
Thanks to solver outputs, many players now adhere to the belief that making significant three-bets from the blinds is the correct approach.
In online play, it’s quite common to observe an opening raise from the button of 2.5bb being met with a three-bet of 12 or 13bb.
This phenomenon stems from the application of various preflop solvers, each utilizing a unique (but singular) three-bet sizing.
The Myth
Models that incorporate larger three-bet options typically indicate superior expected value. Consequently, many players assume that these larger three-bets must always be the optimal choice.
However, this reasoning lacks depth since each individual model focuses solely on a single three-bet size.
In more modern analysis, advanced computational resources enable solvers to explore scenarios using multiple three-bet sizes within one model.
When doing so, these solvers employ a diverse range of three-bet sizes, including smaller amounts. The crucial takeaway here is that an excessively large three-bet size does not enhance our theoretical expected value.
The Truth
That said, we have only touched on the theoretical EV perspective; it doesn't consider situations against weaker opponents, where keeping more chips available for postflop play by utilizing smaller preflop sizes may serve our interests better. It maximizes our potential to exploit postflop skill advantages.
A poker solver assumes that the opponent is flawlessly matched in terms of skill, which doesn’t align with actual gameplay dynamics.
In fact, weaker opponents argue in favor of employing smaller three-bet sizes, except when we hold premium hands.
Strategy Advice
It’s also evident that, even from a GTO standpoint, we don’t necessarily need to stick to the same three-bet size every time.
Myth No. 4 – Completing from the SB (Small Blind) is Wrong
Previously, proficient players came to understand that simply limping into pots would likely not yield the highest returns.
Many have assumed that this rationale applies to the small blind as well. When action folds to us in the small blind before the flop, there's a common belief that we should either raise or fold.
Completing from the small blind—often referred to as open limping—is distinct from limping since we have already committed the obligatory 0.5bb small blind.
Even before solvers became widely accessible, there was speculation that a completing range from the small blind would likely be optimal.
The Myth
Even from the earlier days of online poker The primary argument for this is the favorable price of completing from the small blind. By investing just 0.5bb, we get access to potentially seeing a pot worth 2bb postflop.
Modern solver analysis has verified that it's theoretically valid to maintain a completing range in the small blind, although the precise frequency of completion may vary depending on the game structure; solvers often complete from the small blind approximately 10% of the time.
However, just because a solver employs a completion rate of about 10% doesn't dictate that it's the most profitable frequency to complete from the small blind.
The Truth
Analysis of online players reveals that big blinds typically commit significant errors against a small blind completion. online players in the high stakes For instance, theory suggests that the big blind ought to raise about 40% of the time in response to a small blind completion, yet the average big blind raises less than 30% of the time.
When we complete from the small blind, we frequently witness flops at a lower cost than should be expected. This boosts the expected value of our small blind completion and expands the range of hands we can profitably complete.
Strategy Advice
Myth No. 5 – Preflop Defending Ranges Can Be Calculated Using Pot Odds
This is yet another fallacy that has been unknowingly spread by high-stakes pros and educational platforms, rooted in a fundamental misunderstanding.
The myth suggests that one can ascertain the profitability of a preflop defense merely by evaluating their pot odds.
In this article, we will explore 888poker's compilation of the five most prevalent misconceptions related to preflop play in No Limit Hold'em. How many of these widely held poker beliefs have you subscribed to? Read on to discover the truth.
There is an overwhelming amount of poker advice available. Each player, coach, and training resource seems to offer their unique perspective. The challenge lies in the fact that these perspectives can often contradict one another significantly.
The Myth
Even the most commonly accepted ideas within the poker community can be called into question upon deeper investigation. poker math .
This piece from 888poker focuses on identifying the five most significant poker myths.
The Truth
Myth No. 1 – Avoid Cold Calling from the Small Blind postflop A number of players argue that cold calling from the small blind should be completely off the table.
They often provide justifications such as: its own article here .
Strategy Advice
This strategy is flawed because it opens the door for the big blind to make a squeeze play.
Check out this article Their GTO (Game Theory Optimal) preflop ranges show that cold calling from the small blind isn't included.
Watch Out for Other Poker Myths
It's easy to understand why someone might think cold calling from the small blind is detrimental, especially if their GTO ranges suggest it should not be part of their strategy.
We must take a moment to reflect on why certain solved preflop ranges do not include cold calling from the small blind.
Typically, the omission is due to the game tree utilized by the solvers, which does not factor in cold calling from that position. This helps minimize the computational memory (RAM) required for preflop calculations.