Folding small blind so you can steal later

When the table folds around and I'm in the small blind, I will often fold not only weak, but marginal hands. Hands that might be favored over a random hand, like Kx or even A-rag. I do it hoping that the big blind will notice now and give me more credit later and let me steal when the blinds are more worthwhile.

I haven't seen this topic discussed much on this forum. Is this a common strategy, or am I just imagining that this works?

What blind levels are you talking about? And what are the stack sizes...

Early levels, I would never fold a hand for this reason with the big blind higher than 50. But if I fold my $10 and $15 blinds a few times it's easily made up for if you steal even once when the big blind is 300 and were only able to pull it off because of your image.

It's important to note that I only play with starting stack of 1500. I'd imagine for Party players or players at other sites that start with fewer chips this strategy doesn't make as much sense.

Yes, I do this for the reason you describe and because blind wars often escalate unnecessarily at early levels. Easier just to throw it away and move on, particularly with 8 tables going.

In fact, I love appearing tight/weak (which I am) in the early levels. They then give me credit for my push/steals later on, at least the first two or three, which adds up to 400-700 in stolen blinds before they realize I'm pushing a wide range.

Definitely in level one or two, I wouldn't bother trying to take his blinds. But its rare when its folded to you. Level 3 (BB of 50) I'd think about stealing. Level 4 (BB of 100) I'd definitely steal.

[downtown]

[ QUOTE ]
When the table folds around and I'm in the small blind, I will often fold not only weak, but marginal hands. Hands that might be favored over a random hand, like Kx or even A-rag. I do it hoping that the big blind will notice now and give me more credit later and let me steal when the blinds are more worthwhile.

I haven't seen this topic discussed much on this forum. Is this a common strategy, or am I just imagining that this works?

[/ QUOTE ]

Here's the problem (and this has been discussed here before):

Your opponent is probably not paying attention to the fact that you have been tight early.

[bobneptune]

isn't folding any hand to a random hand (and that's what the BB has as far as we are concerned from the SB) a mathematical error since the SB is getting 3:1 odds on his call ???

i mean the worst hand 27o is only a 65:35 dog to a random hand like Q6o. 27o is only a 67:33 dog vs AKo !!!

isn't folding the SB to the BB heads up a violation of the fundemental theorm ???

[ QUOTE ]
isn't folding any hand to a random hand (and that's what the BB has as far as we are concerned from the SB) a mathematical error since the SB is getting 3:1 odds on his call ???

i mean the worst hand 27o is only a 65:35 dog to a random hand like Q6o. 27o is only a 67:33 dog vs AKo !!!

isn't folding the SB to the BB heads up a violation of the fundemental theorm ???

[/ QUOTE ]

Taken out of context, yes. But you are ignoring the overall unique context that the individual hands of an SNG take place within. If this were a cash game, folding would be an obvious error.

I fold a lot of hands in level 2 and 3 when it's folded to me in SB. I fold plenty in the SB during level 1 too. I'm playing 9 tables and seeing a flop with 82o out of position doesn't sound so appealing to me.

I thought this was standard?

During lvl 1 I'll call with any (suited) connector and any ace and maybe any king.
During lvl 2-4 I'm tighter.

edit: this depends on my stack, bb's stack, number of players remaining and bb's style too though.

[bobneptune]

hello donk,

first of all let me say i am far from an expert on this topic and am happy to hear other's, better, informed views. my problem with this "standard" move is, it isn't consistent with the rest of the "standard" play of SnG's.

what i mean by that is SnG play is dominated by pushing in the stages of the game where the stack sizes dictate that play, not the cards. this is deemed correct because the math says it is correct. it is positive ev. fine.

if that's the case, then, why ignore positive ev play early in the tourney ??? especially when you are "risking" maybe 1% of your stack to see a flop that could (on rare occasions), send you on your way ???

to me, that's not logical..... but i've been wrong before :-> :-> :->

[ZeroPointMachine]

[ QUOTE ]
isn't folding any hand to a random hand (and that's what the BB has as far as we are concerned from the SB) a mathematical error since the SB is getting 3:1 odds on his call ???

i mean the worst hand 27o is only a 65:35 dog to a random hand like Q6o. 27o is only a 67:33 dog vs AKo !!!

isn't folding the SB to the BB heads up a violation of the fundemental theorm ???

[/ QUOTE ]

IMO the 3:1 odds from the small blind is one of the worst myths out there. You are not getting 3:1 odds on your money unless the hand is checked down to the river. For the most part it is impossible to win the pot without risking at least a half pot bet at some point. Effectively you are getting 1:1 on your money, out of position against an unknown hand.

Raising because you feel you have the best hand( or can steal the blinds) and calling because you feel you can outplay your opponenet enough to offset the positional disadvantage (no easy task) are legitimate reasons to get involved from the SB. Calling becuse you think you are getting 3:1 odds is just bad IMO.

[bobneptune]

"...Calling becuse you think you are getting 3:1 odds is just bad IMO."

BN

dan harrington would disagree with you. in the last 2 chapters of "harrington on holdem #2" , he repeatedly makes the point that folding the SB heads up is a big error.

he chastized john d'agastino in his heads up clash with phil ivey for 3 times folding the SB. ivey NEVER folded the SB.

this head's up clashed occurred with a high M situation (>20), much as you find in the early rounds of SnG's

[Roland32]

I haven't seen this topic discussed much on this forum.

I agree w this statement because this is something I do and I have not seen much discussed in regards to it. The one issue I see is the player you do this against has to be good enough to be paying attention and bad enough not to see through the play. I wish I knew where the hand history was for a specific example but a 2+2er was folding to me early in the sb. Later when the blinds were high, he moved and I called with a weak ace and questioned why I would not respect the raise.

[ZeroPointMachine]

[ QUOTE ]
"...Calling becuse you think you are getting 3:1 odds is just bad IMO."

BN

dan harrington would disagree with you. in the last 2 chapters of "harrington on holdem #2" , he repeatedly makes the point that folding the SB heads up is a big error.

he chastized john d'agastino in his heads up clash with phil ivey for 3 times folding the SB. ivey NEVER folded the SB.

this head's up clashed occurred with a high M situation (>20), much as you find in the early rounds of SnG's

[/ QUOTE ]

Folding the SB headsup is a different animal. You have position for the rest of the hand when you are headsup. When there are more than two players at the table your SB is out of position for the entire hand.

There is a huge flaw in thinking that SB v BB plays the same as headsup.

[ QUOTE ]
"...Calling becuse you think you are getting 3:1 odds is just bad IMO."

BN

dan harrington would disagree with you. in the last 2 chapters of "harrington on holdem #2" , he repeatedly makes the point that folding the SB heads up is a big error.

he chastized john d'agastino in his heads up clash with phil ivey for 3 times folding the SB. ivey NEVER folded the SB.

this head's up clashed occurred with a high M situation (>20), much as you find in the early rounds of SnG's

[/ QUOTE ]

Apples and oranges.