Blind stealing at the PP 10/20

[BigEndian]

I agree that this is true, but I don't think it's worth paying 2SB. It will cause me to limp a hand so that I can play a flop with position against these players though.

- Jim

[BigEndian]

Here are the #'s out of my PT. Note, I just started tracking #'s in PT again, so this is only over 7500 hands (sample-size police stay away, I was asked for these numbers). About 2 months of play for me.

BB/100 won stealing: .39/100 (w/calling) .35/100 (counting only the times I raised)
BB/100 lost w/ chance to steal and folded: .03/100
BB/100 lost from the SB: -.12/100
BB/100 lost from the BB: -.22/100

- Jim

[BigEndian]

I don't disagree with what you wrote at all (except the liberal part, which is subjective and semantics). I didn't state that blind stealing/defending was bad. Only that some players do it too frequently and with the appearance of giving little thought to the situation.

The intent of the post is to encourage people to think a little deeper about their blind steals rather than have the action folded to them and automatically push the raise button.

- Jim

[flair1239]

[ QUOTE ]
This is one of the things that stands out to me as a mistake by a number of TAGs at the 10/20 full ring. Not all of course and probably not even a majority. I suspect it's mostly people new to the 10/20.

In general, people defend their blinds and attempt to steal blinds too much.

The reason this happens is pretty easy to grasp. On a table that's at least 50% TAG, which most every 10/20 is, a blind stealing opportunity is going to be very common. As a result, a TAG dutifully raises to attack what is likely two other TAGs in the blinds figuring their folding equity is very high.

The TAGs in the blinds, being no dummies, know what is happening is very likely a steal attempt and after just a few minutes of exposure to 10/20 figure they need to defend a lot more.

Side question: Who's making the bigger mistake, the player who attempts to steal more or the player who defends more?

TAGs can get so in the habit of stealing that they no longer restrict their steals into players that have a high probability of folding.

I cannot possibly recount the number of times I've cringed seeing some TAG trying to steal a 30%+ VPIP player. Worse, a 75% showdown player. If one of those players is sitting to your left, give it up, you won't be getting very many blinds at all that session.

When presented with an opportunity to steal a blind, I take as much information possible into account (if I'm not distracted, in which case I simply fold). Not the least of which is how often have I tried to steal the blind recently. Try to work out a balance to your blind steals without just mashing raise button. And especially avoid those post-flop jousting hands where chips are spewn (we're all guilty of these).

When defending the blind, ask yourself why you're defending the blind. Let a player take a few blinds. You don't have to defend them all like a rabid dog. The blind isn't your money anymore. This is poker 101, but it's so easy to forget. The blind in front of you is offering you a discount to see a flop against your opponent, but it doesn't turn Q2s into QJs.

- Jim

[/ QUOTE ]

I was playing 3-handed yesterday for about 1/2hour aginst 2 loose passive players. I was raising a lot hands like K2s or Q5s. When you can expect to get calls from hands like 85o on a regular basis, these become thin value raises with a hand in position.

I get the point of your post, but at the same time when your opponents defending range is very wide, and he is passive and won't play back at you without a hand... even Jx hands have showdown value. And you will have a PF equity edge with a wide array of hands. You will also be able to realise this equity edge, because you will be able to get to showdown cheaply if that is what you choose to do.

[Abbaddabba]

People expect to play for a loss from the blinds.

Defending against a steal attempt minimizes those losses.

Stealing is profitable, and that profit comes from the overlay of the posted blinds. You surely can't both be profiting from the interaction. It's the stealer that generally profits, and the blind defender who is decreasing their losses. If you take the blind to be a write off when teh hand starts, then technically speaking, both players _are_ making money by the interaction, fighting over the pot.

That's how tight, tough games work.

[ QUOTE ]
I was playing 3-handed yesterday for about 1/2hour aginst 2 loose passive players. I was raising a lot hands like K2s or Q5s. When you can expect to get calls from hands like 85o on a regular basis, these become thin value raises with a hand in position.

I get the point of your post, but at the same time when your opponents defending range is very wide, and he is passive and won't play back at you without a hand... even Jx hands have showdown value. And you will have a PF equity edge with a wide array of hands. You will also be able to realise this equity edge, because you will be able to get to showdown cheaply if that is what you choose to do.


[/ QUOTE ]

It becomes almost mechanical when you know what strenght of hands they'll show down and what they'll raise.

[BigEndian]

Of course stealing is profitable. Apparently I need to work on my writing skills. Everyone seems to be reading what I wrote above as "thou shalt not steal". Which is silly of course. Every good Christian, Jew and Muslim steals.

- Jim

[elindauer]

[ QUOTE ]
I agree that this is true, but I don't think it's worth paying 2SB. It will cause me to limp a hand so that I can play a flop with position against these players though.

- Jim

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you're onto something there, and it's hidden away in HFAP if I recall as well. If they'll defend with lots of stuff and play badly postflop, open limping has some value.

good luck.
eric