I see I have some catching up to do
I meant no disrespect late last night with my post
None taken. I actually wasn't referring to what you wrote, but I can see how it can have been perceived like that.
Hold-em is a game of position. Blinds simply start the action. You still have two blinds to post heads-up, the same as you do in a full ring game. Instead of letting the blinds guide your thinking, you should be thinking about the role position plays in hold-em.
The dealer has the advantage of determining the amount of aggression heads-up knowing that his opponent will be playing out of position post-flop. Look at the following action from the BB's perspective. Small blind raises pre-flop. Big blind calls with 10,8 off-suit. The flop comes A,J,six. How does the BB play his hand against the pre-flop raiser? What happens if he folds every time he has 10,8 off suit or weaker to pre-flop aggression?
Hopefully, my feeble efforts at explaining the why for the rule is helpful. Maybe someone else on the forum can do a better job answering the crux of your question.
From this perspective the rule seems to be there to preserve the dealers advantage, not reduce it. Interesting!
If the blinds were reversed and the player on the button posted the big blind, that would violate the rules for order of play in hold'em. By rule, the big blind is required to act last before the flop. Therefore, the player on the button must post the small blind in heads-up play.
Having the dealer be the big blind heads up would still achieve this. SB would act first predlop and BB last.
If the dealer was the big blind and decided to fold, he would be folding his big blind to the small blind.
I'm not sure why the BB would act first? He has placed the larger forced bet, so he is awaiting SB's action. It would be like the battle of the blinds.
My point is that I'm still not entirely following how a single rule encompasses both full ring and heads up as stated by BG when multiple blinds are involved.
For a single blind, it makes sense. But if the idea is to look at it by position, then the SB in a regular game should act last preflop as he has the worst position post flop. But that's not what happens.
Yeah, I didn't grasp the position argument either, but my excuse is that I had surgery today and am still a bit lightheaded.
(Not to start a political discussion, but it cost me about 20 bucks
)
The Rule: Big (last) Blind acts last on the first round of betting (while still active in the pot) and the (active) player to the left of the button acts first after the flop.
This would still be achieved if the BB had the button. Again, it would be exactly like in the battle of the blinds. BB would always act last, and the player to the left of the dealer (i.e. the SB) would always act first. This would be the most consistent rule IMO.
Oddly enough, the two arguments that make most sense to me so far are
1) Reducing the dealers advantage by letting him act first preflop, and
2) Preserving the dealers advantage by letting him set the tone with his preflop raise in a hand where he will have position for the rest of the hand (if I understood mojo correctly)
