OK, let's talk about wmajik's article

[KJ o]

Great, thanks!

[RacersEdge]

I like the approach of this article - but the application is in question.

How easily does it extend beyond the case of being folded to in the small blind? What happens if you take the next most complex case - being folded to in the button? Now you have a "geometric effect" for your folding equity. And even if it held up there - how big a weighting can it have at least at the PP 10+1 games where even being folded to in the button can be rare?

Again, though, I do like the methodology - probably can be extended to other situations.

[AleoMagus]

[ QUOTE ]
How easily does it extend beyond the case of being folded to in the small blind? What happens if you take the next most complex case - being folded to in the button?

[/ QUOTE ]

While certainly more complicated, I think a similar methodology can be used to calculate which hands can be considered +EV to steal with on the button. Previous calculations really just weighed EV of three different possibilities

1) Stealing from the BB (based on the prob. that he will fold)
2) Getting caught and winning (based on prob. of being caught and prob. of winning hand if caught)
3) Getting caught and losing (based on prob. of getting caught and prob. of losing hand if caught)

Together, this will give a kind of equity threshold where we can say "if opponent in the BB will call Y% of hands, we need to only steal if we will win X% of the time against that range."
In an earlier post, I detailed exactly what I though those hands were if an opponent called 17.9% of the time (Pairs, Suited broadway cards, AK-AT, KQ)

So, with two opponents we need to consider more possibilities

1) we steal from both
2) we get caught by SB and lose
3) we get caught by SB and win
4) we get caught by BB and lose
5) we get caught by BB and win
6) we get caught by both and lose to either
7) we get caught and beat both

each of these possibilities will depend on exactly what range of hands we expect to get a call from, and each will also depend on new $EV figures that will come from the fact that we are stealing more blinds this way (1.5 instead of 1). We will also need to consider things like the case where we are caught by both. If we are caught by the SB, then the BB will probably tighten to the very tightest 5-10% at most.

All of this is possible to calculate, and just as I managed to give precise steal hands when assuming an opponent would call 17.9%, it should be possible to give precise steal hands when assuming either opponent will call this much (or with whatever frequency(s) we want)

For any situation, it should be possible to expand our calculations to assume even more opponents when considering the EV of a steal. For example, if we include even more possibilities, we should be able to figure this out even for the UTG player in a bubble situation.

What gets very artificial about all of this is that it assumes precise calling standards for your opponents. This is useful, but is hard to make very confident judgements about. There is also the fact that these calculations assume very close to equal stacks.

At any rate, doing such calculations would give at least a reasonable idea of what we should be stealing with against certain kinds of players.

Many will probably tell me I'm wasting my time, but I think I will probably go ahead and make these very calculations in the next while (at least for the button anyways). Don't get me wrong, many of us have played enough to have a really good idea of this anyways, and it definitely varies from SNG to SNG for all the reasons I have already described (different calling standards and stack sizes).
Still, I want to see the results, probably just beacause of my surprise about some of the results in the SB/BB scenario.

We'll see.

Regards
Brad S

Oh... one more thing which is actually very important. I brought this up in another post lately and I think it may be the real reason why these ideas about stealing may be ultimately flawed.

Just because something is +EV, that doesn't mean it is the best option.

I and MJ have argued about the fact that these kinds of plays are +EV ($EV and CEV), but that doesn't mean anything until we compare them with their alternatives.

[rbilabronze]

I have a question about how the ICM calculation is being computed in this thread. When I plug the numbers into the ICM calculator I am getting the following numbers:

Stack Size: ICM $EV Calc:
2375 0.24805509042797175
2250 0.23933185076560756
2500 0.2563065294032103
2500 0.2563065294032103

The way LinusKS is calcuating the ICM he is getting .2507 for the 2500 stacks. The only thing I can think of that is causing the difference is the treatment of the money in the blinds. The way I am calculating it I am ignoring the blinds which are already in the pot.

Am I using the calculator incorrectly? Any help would be appreciated.

[JoeTable]

does anyone have a link to this article?

[BigDave]

Blind Stealing Article

[BigDave]

I'll try again here.

Article

[JoeTable]

thanks

[AtticusFinch]

So here's a question about the general assumptions. How do you determine how "loose" a player is as defined in this article within the short space of time you have to get a read on them in a SNG?

A player who plays a lot of hands early may well (and often does) tighten up significantly on the bubble , and there may not be time to assess their "push calling looseness" (vs. preflop looseness) before a critical decision point comes.

Is semi-tight a reasonable default classification for players on which you don't have much data?

I'm looking at a particular example in a tourney I'm in right now. There's a player with whom i've played 200 hands. His VPIP is 35%, but his fold-to-steal percentage is 100% for both SB and BB. Last time I played this guy I took his BB 5 times in a row, 3 of those with absolute garbage. But if it were the first time I had played him, I might have seen him as "loose" and used the incorrect strategy.

On a related note, has anyone thought much about how to apply these same principles to your own calling standards? I've seen it alluded to, but a more comprehensive treatment would be interesting.

[AA suited]

so if are the BB w/less than 10BB, and someone raises, then you should re-raise all-in/call all-in if you have top 67% since you have the odds?