Stealing requirements: for "called insurance," game theory, or both?

[spentrent]

Some players might decide before the game that when it's time to steal, they'll steal with range X.

Does "range X" add a hard-to-percieve amount of frequency to the hands you'd raise anyway, R, such that (R+X)/R is bigger than 1 but not too close to 2?

Or is range X decided upon because of the insurance it offers if called? For instance KQ called by AT.

[Irieguy]

[ QUOTE ]
Some players might decide before the game that when it's time to steal, they'll steal with range X.

Does "range X" add a hard-to-percieve amount of frequency to the hands you'd raise anyway, R, such that (R+X)/R is bigger than 1 but not too close to 2?

Or is range X decided upon because of the insurance it offers if called? For instance KQ called by AT.

[/ QUOTE ]

The size of range X is decided upon based on the frequency with which you think you will be called.

The constitution of range X is affected by the constitution of the hands you rate to get called by.

So, you may decide to steal with 60% of your hands, but which 60% you choose is not as simple as just saying "top 60%."

So, I guess my answer to your question would be: both.

Irieguy

[bball904]

The way I handle game theory is 2 ways when I am getting short stacked.

1. I determine at a point in time that I will play normally, but also add a specific group of hands that I will open shove with, maybe any suited cards, or any suited clubs, or any hand with a 7. Making this determination before you see your cards is the game theory element.

2. Deciding when you're the small blind that it's time to shove any 2 this round and deciding at that point who's blind you are shoving at. This is not really game theory, but strategic aggression. The cards do not matter at this point.