#1
|
|||
|
|||
Stealing requirements: for \"called insurance,\" game theory, or both?
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. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Stealing requirements: for \"called insurance,\" game theory, or both?
[ 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 |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Stealing requirements: for \"called insurance,\" game theory, or both?
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. |
|
|