Did someone just crack my 63s?

[gh9801]

PP 3/6 limit ring. No reads

Folded to Hero in CO, who opens with 6d3d
Button folds, SB calls, BB threebets, Hero calls, SB calls

Flop [ 6c, 3h, Jc ]
SB checks, BB bets, Hero raises, SB calls two cold, BB calls

Turn [ 7h ]
SB checks, BB checks, Hero bets, SB calls, BB checkraises, Hero threebets, SB folds, BB calls

River [ 2c ]
BB bets.
Hero?

[shant]

I am a big fan of stealing blinds, but damn man, chill on 63s.

[Paxosmotic]

Should be a pretty simple call, yes?

[gh9801]

Am I raising or calling in this spot? Villain didn't cap turn. At the same time, would villain c/r with overs and a flush draw on the turn?

[ropey]

[ QUOTE ]
I am a big fan of stealing blinds, but damn man, chill on 63s.

[/ QUOTE ]
If you are attempting to "steal" the blinds, explain to me why your hand is important.

-ropey

[Paxosmotic]

[ QUOTE ]
Am I raising or calling in this spot? Villain didn't cap turn. At the same time, would villain c/r with overs and a flush draw on the turn?

[/ QUOTE ]
I think calling would be prudent. Two pair is a strong but vulnerable holding. You're probably not going to win this pot even 50% of the time, you're only calling because you lose more by folding than by calling.

[shant]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I am a big fan of stealing blinds, but damn man, chill on 63s.

[/ QUOTE ]
If you are attempting to "steal" the blinds, explain to me why your hand is important.

-ropey

[/ QUOTE ]
Because there needs to be a limit as to what hand is going to be proftable to play with? If your opponents were folding every single time you raised, then go ahead and raise every hand you get. Sometimes they're going to call out of the blinds, and then you need a hand that is playable against that range of hands. 63s is a little low on the spectrum for my taste.

Are you saying you raise any two here?

[gh9801]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Am I raising or calling in this spot? Villain didn't cap turn. At the same time, would villain c/r with overs and a flush draw on the turn?

[/ QUOTE ]
I think calling would be prudent. Two pair is a strong but vulnerable holding. You're probably not going to win this pot even 50% of the time, you're only calling because you lose more by folding than by calling.

[/ QUOTE ]

My thinking is, villain would cap any turn with a hand that beats mine and the only hand I have to worry about on the river is an aggressively played overs+flushdraw. However, more often than not a hand like AcKc would not check raise this turn. Without a turn cap, the most likely hand seems to be AA->QQ or AJ, not a set.

I'm not sure calling is so obvious, maybe I need to be raising in this spot

[gh9801]

[ QUOTE ]


Are you saying you raise any two here?

[/ QUOTE ]

From the limited hands I played, the blinds seemed reasonably tight. Against tight blinds I would raise in CO/button with any two once every few orbits. Against loose blinds I'd never raise 63s in this spot

[Harv72b]

[ QUOTE ]
I am a big fan of stealing blinds, but damn man, chill on 63s.

[/ QUOTE ]

Party Poker 3/6 Hold'em (6 handed) converter (http://www.selachian.com/tools/bisonconverter/hhconverter.cgi)

Preflop: Hero is Button with 5/images/graemlins/club.gif, 7/images/graemlins/club.gif.
<font color="#666666">3 folds</font>, <font color="#CC3333">Hero raises</font>, <font color="#CC3333">SB 3-bets</font>, <font color="#666666">1 fold</font>, Hero calls.

Flop: (7 SB) 9/images/graemlins/diamond.gif, Q/images/graemlins/club.gif, 4/images/graemlins/heart.gif <font color="#0000FF">(2 players)</font>
<font color="#CC3333">SB bets</font>, Hero calls.

Turn: (4.50 BB) 4/images/graemlins/spade.gif <font color="#0000FF">(2 players)</font>
<font color="#CC3333">SB bets</font>, <font color="#CC3333">Hero raises</font>...

Yes, there was a read involved. Yes, my table image was pretty spotless. And no, I wouldn't recommend trying this at home. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[ropey]

[ QUOTE ]
Are you saying you raise any two here?

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm saying that if you are truly on a steal than your cards are irrelevant. Your opponents don't have to fold every single time to be profitable. I find I make the most out of these situations when I am against predictable players who actually call my raise preflop. Your hand becomes easy to release when you are against predictable opponents, and the pot can be easy to "steal".

I would add that the conditions of the game have to be right in order to make these types of raises profitable with anything...but raising with any two is the idea of a steal...raising with a particular "limit" of hands is a semi-bluff.

-ropey

[Paxosmotic]

[ QUOTE ]
Because there needs to be a limit as to what hand is going to be proftable to play with? If your opponents were folding every single time you raised, then go ahead and raise every hand you get. Sometimes they're going to call out of the blinds, and then you need a hand that is playable against that range of hands. 63s is a little low on the spectrum for my taste.

Are you saying you raise any two here?

[/ QUOTE ]
Absolutely raising any two unless the blind is unreasonably loose. We're risking 2 small bets to win 1.5. Therefore we only need to succeed 57.14% of the time in order for this to be profitable.

Further assume that with any random piece of garbage we can find to raise, we will win 25% of the time if we see a flop. With that addendum, we only need to succeed 42.86% of the time. Therefore we can fail to steal the blinds half the time we try, and still show a profit.

This assumes that we have reasonable position to steal and sufficiently tight players in all seats left to act. It's too unlikely to work to be profitable from MP3, it's marginal from CO, but it's an easy raise with any two from the button.

Thoughts?

[ropey]

[ QUOTE ]
we will win 25% of the time if we see a flop. With that addendum, we only need to succeed 42.86% of the time.

[/ QUOTE ]

I didn't realize stealing was such an exact science.

-ropey

[gh9801]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Because there needs to be a limit as to what hand is going to be proftable to play with? If your opponents were folding every single time you raised, then go ahead and raise every hand you get. Sometimes they're going to call out of the blinds, and then you need a hand that is playable against that range of hands. 63s is a little low on the spectrum for my taste.

Are you saying you raise any two here?

[/ QUOTE ]
Absolutely raising any two unless the blind is unreasonably loose. We're risking 2 small bets to win 1.5. Therefore we only need to succeed 57.14% of the time in order for this to be profitable.

Further assume that with any random piece of garbage we can find to raise, we will win 25% of the time if we see a flop. With that addendum, we only need to succeed 42.86% of the time. Therefore we can fail to steal the blinds half the time we try, and still show a profit.

This assumes that we have reasonable position to steal and sufficiently tight players in all seats left to act. It's too unlikely to work to be profitable from MP3, it's marginal from CO, but it's an easy raise with any two from the button.

Thoughts?

[/ QUOTE ]

I didn't realize there was so much science to this, my raise seemed and seems fine to me and I don't think it's even marginal. But the math is impressive

[SmileyEH]

63s from the CO is too wide.

-SmileyEH

[Paxosmotic]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
we will win 25% of the time if we see a flop. With that addendum, we only need to succeed 42.86% of the time.

[/ QUOTE ]

I didn't realize stealing was such an exact science.

-ropey

[/ QUOTE ]
Well I guess I could look deep into my opponent's soul while screaming "I AM STEALING YOUR BLIND!", but as it is, I'd like to have some idea of how often something needs to happen for it to be profitable.

[Paxosmotic]

[ QUOTE ]
63s from the CO is too wide.

-SmileyEH

[/ QUOTE ]
I like it from the button against standard tight opponents, I don't like it from CO.

[gh9801]

... I'd like some input on my river decision

[ QUOTE ]

My thinking is, villain would cap any turn with a hand that beats mine and the only hand I have to worry about on the river is an aggressively played overs+flushdraw. However, more often than not a hand like AcKc would not check raise this turn. Without a turn cap, the most likely hand seems to be AA-&gt;QQ or AJ, not a set.

I'm not sure calling is so obvious, maybe I need to be raising in this spot

[/ QUOTE ]

[Jake (The Snake)]

First of all you are neglecting the possibility that it is raised behind you preflop.

Second of all against average blinds you will not be even close to your 43% number at these limits. 63s is too wide unless the blinds are ultra-tight.

[shant]

[ QUOTE ]
63s from the CO is too wide.

-SmileyEH

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm with you on this one. I still don't think any-two is suitable. I'm not going to get into a terminology discussion over stealing/semi-bluffing, but I think any two is reckless and you're putting in money with way too marginal of a hand.

For the people advocating raising any two in this situation, what is your ASB% in PT if you use it?

I use this range when stealing which I got from a thread (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=&amp;Board=smallholdem&amp;Number=2337110 &amp;Forum=,,&amp;Words=blind%20stealing&amp;Searchpage=1&amp;Limi t=25&amp;Main=2337110&amp;Search=true&amp;where=bodysub&amp;Name=1 1253&amp;daterange=1&amp;newerval=&amp;newertype=&amp;olderval=&amp;ol dertype=&amp;bodyprev=#Post2337110) by Evan on blind-stealing:

[ QUOTE ]
any ace, K5s/K7+, Q5s/Q7+, J6s/J7+, T7s/T8+, 97s/98, 76s+, any pair

[/ QUOTE ]
Using this my ASB% is around 42% and I thought that was getting up there. I can't see open-raising from the CO with 37o as a good play regardless of the tightness of the SB and BB. You need a hand you can play postflop with when the BB decides to defend.

[ropey]

I know, I know...I'm only kidding Pax. I was just thinking that one decimal place would have done the job. /images/graemlins/cool.gif

-ropey

[ropey]

[ QUOTE ]
I like it from the button against standard tight opponents, I don't like it from CO.

[/ QUOTE ]
Thats interesting...I actually prefer it from the CO. I think it looks less like a steal raise.

-ropey

[Malcom Reynolds]

[ QUOTE ]
If you are attempting to "steal" the blinds, explain to me why your hand is important.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you read anything Sklansky ever wrote, when he talks about ante stealing in any poker game, the hands you steal with matter. Stealing is generally a form of semi-bluff. You have two ways to win: successful steal or flop something good. This is why 3-betting is the best defense against steals, as it is also the same recipe you use against a semi-bluff.

[ropey]

[ QUOTE ]
I can't see open-raising from the CO with 37o as a good play regardless of the tightness of the SB and BB. You need a hand you can play postflop with when the BB decides to defend.

[/ QUOTE ]

Do tight players defend from the blinds?

-ropey

[shant]

[ QUOTE ]
Do tight players defend from the blinds?

[/ QUOTE ]
Yeah? I don't get this question. My VPIP is 18-19. I'm what you consider a tight player. I defend my BB especially to some guy who's been open-raising from the CO every time it's folded to him. I doubt I am alone in this.

[ropey]

[ QUOTE ]
If you read anything Sklansky ever wrote, when he talks about ante stealing in any poker game, the hands you steal with matter. Stealing is generally a form of semi-bluff. You have two ways to win: successful steal or flop something good.

[/ QUOTE ]
Yes, but have you ever read anything that Ropey has written? There are certain types of players where any two cards are positive expectation.

[ QUOTE ]
This is why 3-betting is the best defense against steals, as it is also the same recipe you use against a semi-bluff.

[/ QUOTE ]
So perhaps you shouldn't try stealing against a player who will 3-bet you to try to defend against a steal.

-ropey

[ropey]

Let me rephrase..."tight-passive players..."

-ropey

[Entity]

[ QUOTE ]

Do tight players defend from the blinds?

-ropey

[/ QUOTE ]

Ahem.

[ QUOTE ]

PP 3/6 limit ring. No reads


[/ QUOTE ]

Rob

[shant]

[ QUOTE ]
Let me rephrase..."tight-passive players..."

[/ QUOTE ]
OK, now you're going to get into strict classifications of reads on players to do this on. The OP here had no reads and raised 63s from the CO. You responded with "when you steal the cards don't matter" but now we're against tight-passive blinds who don't defend much. I think you're back-tracking here.

[Paxosmotic]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Let me rephrase..."tight-passive players..."

[/ QUOTE ]
OK, now you're going to get into strict classifications of reads on players to do this on. The OP here had no reads and raised 63s from the CO. You responded with "when you steal the cards don't matter" but now we're against tight-passive blinds who don't defend much. I think you're back-tracking here.

[/ QUOTE ]
And I think it's important to mention that me and Shant were having a semi-theoretical discussion on what to use to steal and when. I still don't feel 63s in CO merits a steal, so please no one take from this thread that any two is okay and start open raising everything you're dealt from MP3 onwards. You will not be successful.

[baronzeus]

I love this steal. So ballsy. But it's -EV against all but the tightest blinds. /images/graemlins/shocked.gif

[Paxosmotic]

[ QUOTE ]
I love this steal. So ballsy. But it's -EV against all but the tightest blinds. /images/graemlins/shocked.gif

[/ QUOTE ]
I just stepped in the largest mud puddle in Iraq. Guess you're not having the worst night out of the two of us anymore, eh?

[gh9801]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Let me rephrase..."tight-passive players..."

[/ QUOTE ]
OK, now you're going to get into strict classifications of reads on players to do this on. The OP here had no reads and raised 63s from the CO. You responded with "when you steal the cards don't matter" but now we're against tight-passive blinds who don't defend much. I think you're back-tracking here.

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe I should edit my post, I was there for about an orbit and they seemed reasonably tight.

[Malcom Reynolds]

[ QUOTE ]
I didn't realize there was so much science to this, my raise seemed and seems fine to me and I don't think it's even marginal. But the math is impressive

[/ QUOTE ]

Limit poker is inherently mathematical, and within certain parameters you can often calculate the highest EV decisions. The trick then, is to be good enough at handreading and psychology to fill in these probabilities and parameters.

Without examining the science and math of poker, you cannot be sure that the 'intuitive' ideas are correct.

[Malcom Reynolds]

[ QUOTE ]
Yes, but have you ever read anything that Ropey has written? There are certain types of players where any two cards are positive expectation.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes. But against most players this is not positive expectation. Without a specific read this play isn't even close. It's not marginal. It's a losing play against 3/6 unknowns at Party Poker.

[gh9801]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Yes, but have you ever read anything that Ropey has written? There are certain types of players where any two cards are positive expectation.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes. But against most players this is not positive expectation. Without a specific read this play isn't even close. It's not marginal. It's a losing play against 3/6 unknowns at Party Poker.

[/ QUOTE ]

What I meant when I said "no reads" was that I had no reliable PT stats based on my one orbit of play, although the blinds hadn't been active in that one orbit

[Malcom Reynolds]

[ QUOTE ]
What I meant when I said "no reads" was that I had no reliable PT stats based on my one orbit of play, although the blinds hadn't been active in that one orbit

[/ QUOTE ]

One orbit won't tell you anything about their tightness in the blinds, so again they remain 3/6 party unknowns.

[gh9801]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What I meant when I said "no reads" was that I had no reliable PT stats based on my one orbit of play, although the blinds hadn't been active in that one orbit

[/ QUOTE ]

One orbit won't tell you anything about their tightness in the blinds, so again they remain 3/6 party unknowns.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok, so I guess the conclusion is that this raise is a little ill-advised?

[oreogod]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
63s from the CO is too wide.

-SmileyEH

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm with you on this one. I still don't think any-two is suitable. I'm not going to get into a terminology discussion over stealing/semi-bluffing, but I think any two is reckless and you're putting in money with way too marginal of a hand.

For the people advocating raising any two in this situation, what is your ASB% in PT if you use it?

I use this range when stealing which I got from a thread (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=&amp;Board=smallholdem&amp;Number=2337110 &amp;Forum=,,&amp;Words=blind%20stealing&amp;Searchpage=1&amp;Limi t=25&amp;Main=2337110&amp;Search=true&amp;where=bodysub&amp;Name=1 1253&amp;daterange=1&amp;newerval=&amp;newertype=&amp;olderval=&amp;ol dertype=&amp;bodyprev=#Post2337110) by Evan on blind-stealing:

[ QUOTE ]
any ace, K5s/K7+, Q5s/Q7+, J6s/J7+, T7s/T8+, 97s/98, 76s+, any pair

[/ QUOTE ]
Using this my ASB% is around 42% and I thought that was getting up there. I can't see open-raising from the CO with 37o as a good play regardless of the tightness of the SB and BB. You need a hand you can play postflop with when the BB decides to defend.

[/ QUOTE ]

The abdul article linked in that thread is pretty great IMO as well. Makes for intresting reading such as (the last part about A9o and A8o are especially intresting):


Similarly, it is an S&amp;M myth that you should raise with baby pairs like 33 after six (or fewer) limpers, even if you know the blinds will call. Although you will flop a set more then 1 in 9 times, you will win the pot less than 1 in 9 times. Since you will win the pot less than your fair share, you should not raise. A possible exception is when the raise has a decent chance of buying you a free card on the flop, as this now improves your chance of winning to better than 1 in 9, but it is normally rare that all 8 opponents would check to the raiser.

S&amp;M advocate that "If you hold JJ and the pot has been raised and reraised before the action gets to you, you should fold." While I suggest folding to an extremely tight reraise, usually you should reraise here with TT or JJ, I believe. In general, S&amp;M value pairs less than I do and offsuit hands and suited connectors more than I do.

Most importantly, S&amp;M do not emphasize having the biggest cards in a pot if you play offsuit cards. Here is the most striking example from their book: "If you are dead last - that is, if you are on the button - and there are already callers, you can play hands in Groups 1-7." Group 7 includes J9, T9, and 98, which I recommend folding. Here I recommend raising with A9 and calling with A8, but S&amp;M recommend folding them, as A9 is in group 8 and A8 is not in any S&amp;M group. I agree with folding A9 and A8 after tight limpers, but not after loose limpers. Flopping a big pair with the best kicker gets you most of your profit in hold'em even in loose games (especially when the board pairs low on the turn or river.) This is why after a bunch of loose limpers A9 is more appealing than 98, as 98 can never flop top pair with a good kicker, and 98 is likely to succumb to overcards even if it flops top pair. A hold'em player cannot live by straight draws alone.

[shant]

[ QUOTE ]
Maybe I should edit my post, I was there for about an orbit and they seemed reasonably tight.

[/ QUOTE ]
This is still readless. If you saw me raise 3 times in "about an orbit" because I had TT, AK, and KQ your read of me would be a LAG.