Italian Poker Players

October 26, 2005

Should the big blind not reraise as often? After all, the button is now about 1/4 more likely to be raising a legitimate monster. While the big blind should make an adjustment, it should not be substantial. The rationale for reraising is to affect future play, both postflop and on future hands. A reraise shifts the initiative to the big blind, and it increases the chance the button will fold after the flop.

We assume that each Paradisepoker opponent will make the decision to play based on their connection with the flop and their relative looseness-so we assign a percentage chance each opponent will call on the flop (e.g. 75%). When we considered pure bluffs, it was enough to check if either opponent would call. If the small blind instead has a good hand, it is necessary to break down what happens when both opponents call versus when one opponent calls. This is a simple question of probabilities.

Clearly, it is not impossible to achieve these standards playing Paradisepoker. You must receive pay (i.e. be a winning player), show great skill (a prerequisite for long-term winning), and engage in the activity as a source of livelihood or as a career (career simply means "a chosen pursuit"). Notice that no mention is made of winning more at poker than one could achieve at another job.

In this scenario, we continue to assume an average player raising 100% of the time, as well as the same 3:1 pot odds. However, now the big blind will have position post-flop. Obviously, position makes a tremendous difference, with the advantage yielding dividends immediately on the flop since you will be able to gain information about your opponent. If your position will earn an edge, and you have 3:1 pot odds, it should seem obvious that you can defend very liberally against an opponent who raises 100% of the time.

However, I believe they use unsound logic to determine the number of playable Paradisepoker hands in a short-handed game, and I don't feel our differences in opinion are insignificant. Sklansky and Malmuth have an irrefutible reputation that is well deserved. Therefore, I am not questioning their character, skill, brilliance, or credibility. It is only my intention to prove that in this one exceptional case, Sklansky and Malmuth's advice is flawed.

It is the same normal $2/4 heads-up Paradisepoker game, except you must only pay $1 if you play a hand preflop. Many holdings such as AA are still clearly profitable, but you would think twice before playing most hands, since there is a hefty fee to overcome each time you compete. Defending the big blind is similar to example 2 above.

Nothing good can come of it. A bad player might improve, get upset and leave, or ignore it. A good player might feel offended and target the "angry loser." I mentioned above that it is better not to have people paying too much attention in the first place. Painting a target on your back is worse, and causing the "live ones" to leave is the greatest crime of all. Why push away the bad players while challenging the good players?

They adjust their own play to their Paradisepoker opponents to capitalize on their opponents' mistakes. Being observant and adjusting one's playing style is the most important requirement for being a winning short-handed player. First, with a higher rate of hands played, an observant player can pick up the tendencies and playing style of opponents much more quickly.