Rake and blind stealing

[bilyin]

Abdul in his article advised against stealing blinds in a game when the big blind gets dropped once the flop is seen. He advised to open with JJ or higher in such a situation. I have never seen this advice given by anyone else. Is it true that blind stealing is worth it in a time charge game only?
Comments from experienced players are appreciated.

[JoeyT]

I haven't seen the article... so one or both of us may be misinterpreting its meaning. That said...

I think its a pretty ridiculous statement to only open on the button with JJ or higher. I think its profitable to attempt steals with anything that would be playable from the button in the first place... and then some. If the blinds are tight, go after them almost every time.

[Clarkmeister]

As the rake increases, you need to get tighter. As an example of why this is true, if both blinds were raked at 100%even with no flop, obviously you wouldn't ever steal.

Thankfully, most games are raked at a more reasonable level where this isn't the case. I can, however, think of two real life LL examples where strategy changes need to be made.

1. Commerce Casino. As an example, in the 6-12 and 9-18 the binds are in a 3 chip-1 chip structure. So there is $8 in blind money in the $6-12 and $12 in the $9-18. The last time I was there, if there was any action at all, they took the $5 whether or not there was a flop. (please someone correct me if I am wrong.)

As you can see, in the 6 and even in the 9, you should significantly tighten your blind stealing requirements in this situation. Your edge with even hands like AK isn't nearly enough to overcome that severe of a takeout. Risking $12 on a preflop raise to take $3 in blinds is clearly a losing situation with even decent hands.

2. Vegas 4-8 with 1-2 blinds. There simply isn't enough blind money to worry about. And with all the places taking $4 out of the pot at a 5% rate, its simply not going to be profitable in the long run. Now if you have very loose, very poor playing blinds, then definitely keep firing away. But in general, its a bad proposition to risk $6 to win $3 with a buck coming out if a flop is taken.

[Dynasty]

In the Vegas 4-8 games, the $1 and $2 blinds don't make it incorrect to steal the blinds with typical blind stealing hands. The blind structure make it incorrect to defend your blinds with typical blind defense hands.

[Clarkmeister]

"In the Vegas 4-8 games, the $1 and $2 blinds don't make it incorrect to steal the blinds with typical blind stealing hands. The blind structure make it incorrect to defend your blinds with typical blind defense hands."

That is incorrect. It makes it incorrect to both defend, or steal with anything but high quality hands. Also, it is not just the blinds at play here, the rake plays a significant role.

The combination of little blinds plus rake make it a losing proposition to steal with "normal" stealing hands such as K5s, QTo and 22. Assuming the SB folds and the BB defends, it is a losing proposition for both players, assuming reasonably equal postflop skill. That $1 sb gets dropped on the flop and both players are in a no win situation from that point. The proper adjustment in these games on the button is to significantly raise your stealing threshold.

[Ed Miller]

I think its a pretty ridiculous statement to only open on the button with JJ or higher. I think its profitable to attempt steals with anything that would be playable from the button in the first place... and then some.

I think you are missing the issue here. I find it very strange that this thread appeared today because I was planning to start this exact thread this morning.... I was thinking about it last night.

The point is that the higher the rake, the tighter you have to be in your blind stealing.... because the less you win if your steal attempt is called. In a time game, you could steal profitably with many more hands than you could in a 4-8 game where, say, $3 was dropped as soon as a flop comes. The question is, how much tighter for what rake? I'm assuming that Abdul used TTH simulations to arrive at his JJ conclusion... I wonder if there is a more appropriate way to attack the problem.