Poker Formation Is More Important Than Position

27 Sep 2025

Intermediate

This material is for medium-skilled players

Welcome back to another episode of the Red Chip Poker Podcast. I’m James Sweeney, aka Splitsuit, co-founder of Red Chip Poker. Quick question: are you thinking about poker strategy the wrong way? In this season finale, we’ll break down a concept most players overlook, but one that heavily influences everything from c-betting to bluff catching: formational awareness.

If you’ve only been categorizing spots as “in position” or “out of position,” you’re missing the nuance that separates elite players from the rest. We’ll dive into how specific formations — like button vs. big blind or cutoff vs. hijack — radically change solver outputs, overbet frequencies, and exploitative decisions. Whether your game leans more GTO or exploitative, this episode will show you how granular awareness of formations leads to sharper, more profitable strategies.

The term formation has been around for years. It’s similar to the concept of position, but slightly more specific.

• Position is usually binary: you’re either in position or out of position;
• Formation, on the other hand, refers to the precise table matchup. For example: button vs. cutoff, or button vs. small Blind.

There’s also a middle ground. Instead of being purely binary or hyper-specific, we sometimes group situations under terms like “early position formation”. That refers to any matchup where at least one player is seated earlier than the cutoff.

Early, Mid, and Late Position Formations

We can break down formations into broad categories:

• Late position formations – all players are cut off or later. For example, cutoff vs. big blind.
• Mid position formation – not a widely used term yet, but there’s room for it. This would specifically involve the cutoff.
• Early position formations – any matchup where one of the players is seated earlier than the cutoff.

Why highlight the cutoff separately? Because it plays very differently from either the button or the hijack. The cutoff opens aggressively, but not nearly as aggressively as the button. At the same time, it’s still much wider than the hijack. This makes the cutoff its own unique formation that deserves attention.

So why not just stick with “position” instead of using “formation”? Because the exact formation dramatically impacts the correct strategy. Yet, most players rarely talk about it. For example, you’ll often hear players describe their c-betting ranges as simply:

• “In position” vs. “Out of position”;
• Or broken down by pot type: single-raised, three-bet, delayed c-bet, probe bet, etc.

These are useful distinctions, but notice what’s missing: the formation itself. Nobody says: “This is my delayed c-bet and follow-up strategy button vs. big blind”. Or: “Here’s my c-bet range UTG vs. big blind”. Instead, players default to general labels like “IP in a single-raised pot”. That skips over one of the most important variables in the hand: who is actually facing who.

Players often build strategies like: “This is my c-bet range in position in single-raised pots.” That’s not a terrible way to approach the game, but it’s overly broad. Formation has a huge impact on how situations should be played, yet many players completely ignore it when constructing strategy.

Let’s look at a few solver outputs to see the difference formation makes:

• Big Blind vs. Small Blind: Small blind open-raises, big blind 3-bets. The correct c-bet frequency is 61.7%. This is one of the lowest frequencies in 3-bet pots.
• Button vs. Cutoff: Same situation, but button 3-bets against cutoff. Now the average c-bet frequency across all flops rises to 82.4%.
• Hijack vs. Lowjack (MP vs. UTG): In this early-position formation, the c-bet frequency in 3-bet pots climbs even higher to 84%.

The earlier the formation, the higher the average c-bet frequency:

• BB vs. SB: 61.7%
• BTN vs. CO: 82.4%
• HJ vs. LJ: 84%

This means in early-position formations, many hands become pure c-bets, while in late-position formations we should be far more selective.

A simple way to think about it:

• In early-position 3-bet pots, if a hand feels close, lean toward c-betting;
• In late-position 3-bet pots like BB vs. SB, if a hand feels close, lean toward checking back.

Out of Position C-Bet Strategies in 3-Bet Pots

As a general rule of thumb, out of position c-bets less often in 3-bet pots compared to in position. But there are some exceptions worth noting. For example, big blind vs. small blind has the lowest c-bet frequency of all 3-bet pots — even though the big blind is technically in position after the flop.

Big Blind vs. Button

Let’s compare that to big blind vs. button, where the big blind 3-bets against a button open. GTO average c-bet frequency across all flops is 63.4%. That’s slightly higher than BB vs. SB (61.7%), but the important point is this: in BB vs. BTN, you’re out of position, yet you’re still supposed to c-bet more aggressively than in BB vs. SB.

Small Blind vs. Button

Now consider small blind vs. button. At first glance, you might assume this is similar to BB vs. BTN — both are blind vs. button battles. But there’s a key difference:

• Big blind’s 3-bet range: contains a lot of speculative, polarized hands;
• Small blind’s 3-bet range: much stronger and more depolarized.

Because of this, the small blind should c-bet more aggressively:

• BB vs. BTN: 63.4%
• SB vs. BTN: 71.3%

Small Blind vs. Lowjack

We can also build a scenario where out of position c-bet frequency becomes very high. Take small blind vs. lowjack — a clear early position formation (because one of the players is UTG+). GTO average c-bet frequency is 77.9%. That’s not quite as aggressive as HJ vs. LJ in position (84%), but it’s still much higher than SB vs. BTN (71.3%).

Formation dictates how aggressively you should c-bet:

• In position > out of position.
• Late-position battles (like BB vs. SB) = lowest frequencies.
• Small blind > big blind when 3-betting the same opener.
• Earlier-position formations = much higher c-bet frequencies.

This framework doesn’t give you the exact action for every hand, but it sets the right metagame weights. In some formations, c-bet hyper aggressively. In others, lean more toward checking and keeping pots manageable.

By now it should be clear that formation has a big impact on strategy. It’s not enough to just say, “Here’s my c-bet strategy in position in 3-bet pots.” Without breaking it down by formation, that approach is weak and incomplete. To drive the point home, let’s look at another example where formation completely changes the right strategy: overbetting the flop in single-raised pots.

In theory, when we c-bet the flop in position in a heads-up single-raised pot, we’re supposed to overbet at least some of the time. But how often depends heavily on formation. Take a specific flop:    rainbow. This is a “double broadway” board, and solvers often like overbetting on textures like this — but not always.

If we just said, “Solver likes to overbet on Ace-Jack-4”, that would be sloppy. It’s true on average, but not across every formation. Without specifying formation, the statement is incomplete.

Button vs. Big Blind

When we look at button vs. big blind on    rainbow, the solver chooses the overbet sizing about 30% of the time. Notice here we’re not focusing on whether to c-bet, but on how often to use the overbet sizing.

Many players don’t make this distinction. They might overbet based only on the board texture, ignoring formation altogether. Some players don’t even use flop overbets in their strategy. But the fact that solver overbets 30% of the time in this specific formation should make us rethink that.

Cutoff vs. Big Blind

Now compare that to cutoff vs. big blind — what I’d call a “mid-position formation”. We’ve already touched on why I treat it as its own unique category. And when we see the overbet frequency here, it becomes clear just how different formations really are.

On our A-J-4 rainbow board, solver’s overbet frequency drops to 18.6% in cutoff vs. big blind. That’s a sharp decline from the 30% frequency in button vs. big blind. Now, step back one more seat: hijack vs. big blind in a single-raised heads-up pot. Here, solver overbets only 1.9% of the time. Just that one shift — cutoff back to hijack — almost eliminates the overbet from our strategy.

This shows that cutoff really is its own unique formation. It doesn’t play like the button, and lumping cutoff and button together under “late position formation” is misleading. Instead, cutoff deserves its own category — what we might call mid-position formation.

Hijack vs. Lowjack

From hijack to lowjack, the overbet frequency drops only slightly, from 1.9% to 0.5%. There are strategic differences between hijack vs. big blind and lowjack vs. big blind, but they aren’t nearly as drastic as the button-to-cutoff or cutoff-to-hijack transitions.

That’s why it makes sense to group hijack and lowjack into a single early position formation. Their strategies are close enough that they don’t require two completely separate buckets.

Button vs. Big Blind vs. Small Blind

At first glance, we might assume button vs. big blind and button vs. small blind should play similarly. But our earlier discussion about how the small blind approaches 3-bet pots compared to the big blind warns us not to make that assumption.

The blinds are unique positions, whether we’re sitting in them or playing against them. And solver confirms this with clear differences:

• Button vs. Big Blind cold caller → solver overbets 30% of the time;
• Button vs. Small Blind cold caller → solver overbets only 9.2% of the time.

That’s a massive gap, simply based on which blind is defending. Most players just think of these as “button vs. blinds” spots and never adjust. But when you compare the typical big blind cold calling range to the typical small blind cold calling range, the differences are obvious. Strategically, treating them the same is a mistake — the solver makes it clear we need very different approaches.

We obviously overbet much less against the small blind because their range is tighter. For example, if we’re the lowjack opener facing a small blind cold call, solver gives an overbet frequency of just 0.8% on the A-J-4 rainbow.

This shows that overbetting isn’t only about board texture — it’s about texture + formation. Formation determines what ranges players arrive with, and that’s one of the biggest building blocks in figuring out correct strategy.

So far, we’ve talked in theoretical terms, but the same importance of formation shows up in exploitative poker. If you’re running population analysis or range research reports, one of the best things you can do is break down stats by formation, not just by line.

Too often players ask general questions like: “How often is the pool bluffing when they probet the river?”. That’s useful information, but it’s just an average value. A more useful question is:

• Are players overbluffing in late position formations?
• Are they overbluffing in mid or early position formations?

As a general rule, the later the formation, the more likely a player is to bluff. Why? Because in late position battles, ranges contain more natural bluffs — hands like 6-high, 10-high, or jack-high that can never win at showdown. Even tight players often feel compelled to turn these into bluffs.

In contrast, in early position formations, players start with much stronger ranges. That means fewer natural bluffs survive to the river, which translates into a lower bluffing frequency overall.

This creates a clear strategic takeaway:

• In late position formations, bluff catching can be correct because opponents are more likely to overbluff;
• In early position formations, bluff catching can actually be -EV since opponents arrive at the river with stronger hands and fewer natural bluffs.

The same applies when we’re the one bluffing:

• In late position formations, opponents have more air in their range, so their folding frequency is higher;
• In early position formations, opponents hold more bluff-catchers and strong hands, so their folding frequency is lower.

Bottom line: whether we’re bluff catching or bluffing ourselves, formation has to be central to the analysis. Alright, hopefully this has given you something to think about. It should give a boost to the way you think about the game. You should be able to construct more precise strategies.

Thanks very much for listening to the content. This was Coach Weasel, and this was the Red Chip Poker Podcast. Thank you so much for joining us today!