In SB with 32o; 3 posters check

[Aaron W.]

[ QUOTE ]
The play, and the post, were made in a bit of a mischievous spirit, and I'm not going to argue that this play was +EV, but some analysis might help us to better define the limits of post-stealing with junk.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is not post-stealing in the conventional sense. Post-stealing is when you post from the cutoff or somewhere else in LATE POSITION. Your positional advantage is very important in the steal attempt.

[ QUOTE ]
I'll ask the question this way...What are some minimum changes in the dynamics of the hand that would be necessary for you to raise these two cards? I assume everyone raises with this hand when they post in the CO and it's folded to them.

[/ QUOTE ]

Position is important. Being an actual poster is important.

[ QUOTE ]
Is it simply untenable to steal from the SB with multiple posters?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes. But this doesn't mean you should play your normal SB game. With this many players, hands should be raised for value (ie pot-building). Since the average hand I expect to see is weaker than usual, more hands have value than usual.

[ QUOTE ]
Asked another way, what's the minimum hand you raise with here? 42o? [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

My raising requirements are slightly looser than my normal raising requirements.

[ QUOTE ]
The chief considerations in this hand are (1) There are as many as 4.5 SB's worth of dead money in the pot when it gets to us pf. (2) None of the four players in the pot have a good hand. (3) The button and any poster that calls will play poorly post-flop. (4) Raise or fold are the only options, since calling gets us in a 6-way pot looking for a miracle. (5) The probabilty for getting it HU with button is undefined but significantly greater than zero. (6) We're OOP.

[/ QUOTE ]

(2) If there are three posters, you expect that one of them has an above average hand about 87.5% of the time. So while they probably don't have a monster, it's not reasonable to assume that they all have complete junk.

(4) False. Taking a cheap flop with dead money and hoping for a miracle is perfectly acceptable.

(5) See (2). I don't think it's "significantly" greater than zero.

[Schwartzy61]

At Absolute this play would work...

At Party you are gonna be screwed...

[ellipse_87]

[ QUOTE ]
At Absolute this play would work...

At Party you are gonna be screwed...

[/ QUOTE ]

This was Empire, FWIW.

[shant]

I would raise 32o or any other hand I had if it was folded to a CO poster and he checked and I was the button. As you add posted players, I think you have to get more selective with what you steal with because the chances go up that you will be called.

After the button overlimps, this is not even a steal situation anymore and I think the raise is just wrong.

[imported_The Vibesman]

[ QUOTE ]
At Absolute this play would work...

At Party you are gonna be screwed...

[/ QUOTE ]

If you ever see 3 blind-posters in an Absolute 1/2 game, email me the screenshot and I will print this post out and eat it.

I agree with the others, there's just too much going on here to try this. The button limping throws the play right out the window for me. At the very least don't bet the turn.

[crownjules]

[ QUOTE ]
Is it simply untenable to steal from the SB with multiple posters?

[/ QUOTE ]

I think it would be extremely hard, yes. The biggest factor working against you is you have no idea how they play. Are they going to call you down with any pair? That's not the type of player you steal against normally, so you wouldn't want to do it here. Against one unknown, you can attempt it perhaps. But three plus a limper?

You're also building a big pot that people will not want to get away from so quickly if they do hit it well.

[ QUOTE ]

Asked another way, what's the minimum hand you raise with here? 42o?

[/ QUOTE ]

In this particular situation, nothing much less than my normal raising standards. If it were just me and 1-2 posters, then I might drop down a little, say 77+, A9+, KT+, maybe QJ.

[ QUOTE ]
(2) None of the four players in the pot have a good hand. (4) Raise or fold are the only options, since calling gets us in a 6-way pot looking for a miracle. (5) The probabilty for getting it HU with button is undefined but significantly greater than zero. (6) We're OOP.

[/ QUOTE ]

2. Going back to my first paragraph, you don't know how any of these players play so you can't make that assumption. Normally I wait an orbit or two so that I can get to know the guys who I will be stealing the blinds from, how tight/loose they play and whatnot so I can guage how effective my blind steals may be and adjust what hands I will attempt steals with.

4. I disagree. Calling here for 1SB is giving you good return on your money if you flop a big hand/draw. Not to many people will believe you have trip deuces/treys or a wheel should you flop those type of hands.

5. I disagree again. You might get one, maybe two, to fold. But the pot has already been made nice and big just merely by the presence of three posters and a limper. First to act after you is getting 7:1 on their money. Wouldn't you call out of the BB with hands like 65o, 44, J9s? And you pay attention to odds.

6. WOOP!

[Shillx]

This is one of those things that we experiment with and then (as we become smarter) realize that they are never going to work. Toss it in PF next time.

Brad

Grunch:

You're raising with 32o from the SB? What were you trying to accomplish? no offense, but that's spewing to me. You OOP with a weak hand. Only thing going for it is it's connected. Fold pre-flop. Even with all the posters, I think your odds suck.

Edit: ok, after I posted I read your replies. I still think playing for a post steal here isn't going to work to make it +EV. Too many posters, plus the limp...if you were in CO or on the Button with fewer posters, I'd say go for it. But in this hand anybody with just about anything is getting the odds to call your raise.

[ellipse_87]

[ QUOTE ]
The biggest factor working against you is you have no idea how they play.

[/ QUOTE ]

I see what you mean, but I had premised this thread on the assumption (again, acknowledging that 32o is pushing it too far) that some meaning could be gleaned from multiple posters who check, and a button who has a playable hand but does not raise it.

The meaning to be derived is (1) most of the players involved don't know what they're doing and will play weakly post-flop, because they posted in EP/MP and none of them raised their playable hands getting the discount; and (2) the playable hands interspersed among the random hands are marginal (low pp's, low connectors, Axo) because there was no raise, and therefore are more likely to miss the flop.

Raising and then opening costs 2.5 small bets; the return (assuming 3 posters and a limper, like in the original hand) ranges from 2.5-1 (if only button calls) to 3.8-1 (if all call), plus the equity of whatever hand we end up with post-flop.

I dunno, I thought there might be something interesting here, when you're in situations with this kind of dead money and passivity. I guess more than two posters is so rare that this really amounts to a discussion of pure theory. I'll take the advice of the forum and resist the temptation in future situations.

Sorry again for those who see this post as a waste of time. Pretty borderline I admit.

[shant]

It's not a waste of time, and is potentially interesting, but not from the SB. If you had posted the original hand and you were the Button with 32o I think we'd have more to discuss. Being OOP the whole hand totally kills it for me, plus the Button limp means he has a hand he likes.

Like I said earlier, against one poster I would've raised the 32o from the Button, but as the posters increase, I think the range you raise with should get smaller.

This might be a better question for Small Stakes because people in the Micros don't seem to be as interested in blind stealing posts. Also, like you said, the situation comes up so rarely it's not really a strategy post.