Did someone just crack my 63s? - Page 2

ropey · #11 08-01-2005, 08:30 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Are you saying you raise any two here?

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm saying that if you are truly on a steal than your cards are irrelevant. Your opponents don't have to fold every single time to be profitable. I find I make the most out of these situations when I am against predictable players who actually call my raise preflop. Your hand becomes easy to release when you are against predictable opponents, and the pot can be easy to "steal".

I would add that the conditions of the game have to be right in order to make these types of raises profitable with anything...but raising with any two is the idea of a steal...raising with a particular "limit" of hands is a semi-bluff.

-ropey

Paxosmotic · #12 08-01-2005, 08:31 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Because there needs to be a limit as to what hand is going to be proftable to play with? If your opponents were folding every single time you raised, then go ahead and raise every hand you get. Sometimes they're going to call out of the blinds, and then you need a hand that is playable against that range of hands. 63s is a little low on the spectrum for my taste.

Are you saying you raise any two here?

[/ QUOTE ]
Absolutely raising any two unless the blind is unreasonably loose. We're risking 2 small bets to win 1.5. Therefore we only need to succeed 57.14% of the time in order for this to be profitable.

Further assume that with any random piece of garbage we can find to raise, we will win 25% of the time if we see a flop. With that addendum, we only need to succeed 42.86% of the time. Therefore we can fail to steal the blinds half the time we try, and still show a profit.

This assumes that we have reasonable position to steal and sufficiently tight players in all seats left to act. It's too unlikely to work to be profitable from MP3, it's marginal from CO, but it's an easy raise with any two from the button.

Thoughts?

ropey · #13 08-01-2005, 08:33 PM

[ QUOTE ]
we will win 25% of the time if we see a flop. With that addendum, we only need to succeed 42.86% of the time.

[/ QUOTE ]

I didn't realize stealing was such an exact science.

-ropey

gh9801 · #14 08-01-2005, 08:36 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Because there needs to be a limit as to what hand is going to be proftable to play with? If your opponents were folding every single time you raised, then go ahead and raise every hand you get. Sometimes they're going to call out of the blinds, and then you need a hand that is playable against that range of hands. 63s is a little low on the spectrum for my taste.

Are you saying you raise any two here?

[/ QUOTE ]
Absolutely raising any two unless the blind is unreasonably loose. We're risking 2 small bets to win 1.5. Therefore we only need to succeed 57.14% of the time in order for this to be profitable.

Further assume that with any random piece of garbage we can find to raise, we will win 25% of the time if we see a flop. With that addendum, we only need to succeed 42.86% of the time. Therefore we can fail to steal the blinds half the time we try, and still show a profit.

This assumes that we have reasonable position to steal and sufficiently tight players in all seats left to act. It's too unlikely to work to be profitable from MP3, it's marginal from CO, but it's an easy raise with any two from the button.

Thoughts?

[/ 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

SmileyEH · #15 08-01-2005, 08:37 PM

63s from the CO is too wide.

-SmileyEH

Paxosmotic · #16 08-01-2005, 08:37 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
we will win 25% of the time if we see a flop. With that addendum, we only need to succeed 42.86% of the time.

[/ QUOTE ]

I didn't realize stealing was such an exact science.

-ropey

[/ QUOTE ]
Well I guess I could look deep into my opponent's soul while screaming "I AM STEALING YOUR BLIND!", but as it is, I'd like to have some idea of how often something needs to happen for it to be profitable.

Paxosmotic · #17 08-01-2005, 08:39 PM

[ QUOTE ]
63s from the CO is too wide.

-SmileyEH

[/ QUOTE ]
I like it from the button against standard tight opponents, I don't like it from CO.

gh9801 · #18 08-01-2005, 08:40 PM

... I'd like some input on my river decision

[ QUOTE ]

My thinking is, villain would cap any turn with a hand that beats mine and the only hand I have to worry about on the river is an aggressively played overs+flushdraw. However, more often than not a hand like AcKc would not check raise this turn. Without a turn cap, the most likely hand seems to be AA->QQ or AJ, not a set.

I'm not sure calling is so obvious, maybe I need to be raising in this spot

[/ QUOTE ]

Jake (The Snake) · #19 08-01-2005, 08:41 PM

First of all you are neglecting the possibility that it is raised behind you preflop.

Second of all against average blinds you will not be even close to your 43% number at these limits. 63s is too wide unless the blinds are ultra-tight.

shant · #20 08-01-2005, 08:45 PM

[ 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.