Did someone just crack my 63s?

[baronzeus]

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

[Paxosmotic]

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

[/ 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 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&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&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&M value pairs less than I do and offsuit hands and suited connectors more than I do.

Most importantly, S&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&M recommend folding them, as A9 is in group 8 and A8 is not in any S&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.