I steal

[poskid]

Poker Stars, $0.05/$0.10 NL Hold'em Cash Game, 7 Players
LeggoPoker.com - Hand History Converter

CO: $10.65
BTN: $9.85
PK (SB): $12.60
BB: $6.90
UTG: $10.35
UTG+1: $4.90
MP: $12.35

Pre-Flop: 7 3 dealt to PK (SB)
UTG folds, UTG+1 calls $0.10, MP calls $0.10, CO folds, BTN calls $0.10, PK raises to $0.80, 2 folds, MP calls $0.70, BTN folds

Flop: ($1.90) 2 Q 5 (2 Players)
PK bets $1.20, MP folds

Results: $1.90 Pot ($0.05 Rake)
PK mucked 7 3 and WON $1.85 (+$1.05 NET)

[Deadmoney]

Nice..........

I dont do this with absolute trash usually, I like some kind of hand even if its , but then again it wouldn't be a "steal" then would it............


Regards David

[robsmith82]

I actually prefer to have utter trash when I do this.  You dont want to be tempted to keep a 2nd best hand or weak draw going postflop.  It also doesnt "waste" your speculative hands.

PK would you raise this big with monsters too?

[poskid]

PK would you raise this big with monsters too?

Yes.  This is standard raise size for the number of limpers +positional disadvantage.  4xBB to start + 1 for every limper and + 1 for being in a blind.

Dave...I would much rather limp a suited connector here and try and see a cheap flop.  This play is to balance my big pair play so I'm raising large fields like this more often than when I have KK or AA and everyone folds to those hands alot.

PK

[robsmith82]

Be careful though, I dont think you have to worry about balance in this much detail at the limit your at.  Or the next couple of limits to be honest.  You'd not be giving up much by just raising what you normally raise for value.

[SlowJoe]

Tony will clean this one up for me.  
Harrington recomends stealing with trash and only trash.  If you steel with a hand that has any value at all, then you have wasted the value of the hand. 

Joe

[robsmith82]

Thats kinda the point I was trying to make slowjoe, you're absolutely right.

[jabit]

this was something that confused me a bit when reading Harrington on Cash Games...

a hand like has no value to me at all.. I will fold it every time. So you are not missing any of the value of this hand, because you would never play it anyway. But if you do get caught, this hand is much better than utter trash like J3o.

So rather than with utter trash, why not steal with hands which are just a little too speculative to otherwise play?

[SlowJoe]

Yes, sorry Rob.  I havent ben thinking to clearly lately.  Or am I realizing I have never ben thinking clearly at all? 

Jabit, in regards to stealing, maybe we should consider "speculative" to be synonomus with trash.  Now, its either a playable hand given our position, or its trash.
32s, does not play well short handed, so it would be trash when on the button with no limpers. 

Joe

[poskid]

this was something that confused me a bit when reading Harrington on Cash Games...

a hand like has no value to me at all.. I will fold it every time. So you are not missing any of the value of this hand, because you would never play it anyway. But if you do get caught, this hand is much better than utter trash like J3o.

So rather than with utter trash, why not steal with hands which are just a little too speculative to otherwise play?

In this hand...23s would have enough value to limp.  The reason being is because the pot is so wide we are likely to get action any time we hit big.  Therefor we dont want to lose that value by raising.  You are giving up one set of value to attempt for a different 1.  However with a hand like 73o when done sparingly the opps wont be able to notice that we are making a play here and helping to add value to our range.

PK

[robsmith82]

has value jabit.  In late position in cash games with 100BB stacks, I wil open-raise with it, or limp behind a bnch of limpers.  Its speculative, and can also allow you to make extra money on a number of semibluffs. It is NOT J3o.

[Coughy_boy]

has value jabit.  In late position in cash games with 100BB stacks, I wil open-raise with it, or limp behind a bnch of limpers.  Its speculative, and can also allow you to make extra money on a number of semibluffs. It is NOT J3o.

6 max.  Full ring it's in the muck.

Now, its either a playable hand given our position, or its trash.

Now we're going in circles.  It's playable or it's trash.  If it's trash, it's playable (as a steal).

I think the problem is that steal value depends on everything EXCEPT the cards.  So trying to assign steal value to specific hole cards is futile.  Is playable OOP?  That depends.  If you try a steal with it, are you "wasting its intrinsic value?"  I don't think so.  IMO, you will often be leveraging its intrinsic value.

[robsmith82]

Coughy, full ring IS 6 max if the first few players fold......

[Coughy_boy]

Error, robsmith, error.        The normal ranges of starting hands are significantly different between the two.  6 max is a riskier game, by far.

[robsmith82]

No error here. I restate - after the first 3 - 4 players fold, I play as if its 6 max.  You will get a "slight" bunching effect, but this will be pretty negligible.

[SlowJoe]

Now we're going in circles.  It's playable or it's trash.  If it's trash, it's playable (as a steal).

Yes, you are correct coughy.  Over simplification is one of my many flaws.  I should have gave some over the top line of BS to get to a drawn out point of "if its questionable I would consider it a good steal hand on the button". 

This entire debate seems odd to me today.  Are we supposed to limp AA on the button when first to enter the pot.  You wouldnt want to steal with that hand, you want at least one of the blinds in the pot.  Lets say we check down a hand after a blind steal attempt with J3o or 2s3s.  Now our AA will get called when we attempt to steal with it, and maybe even re-raised.  Trash like J3o or 2s3s(i consider it trash in this situation, you may not) has just gained value (in regards to our table image/metagame).  OH NO, we can find some value in any hand, and we souldnt steal with hands of value.  blah blah blah blah blah.  Rinse, Repeat.  All hands have some value, even if it is only for table image.
Poorly thought and written, but i typed it and felt better, so i dont want to delet it.

 

Nice one PK.  Calling this a steel is confusing to me as i tend to think of anything other than a blind steal as a bluff.

[Coughy_boy]

No error here. I restate - after the first 3 - 4 players fold, I play as if its 6 max.  You will get a "slight" bunching effect, but this will be pretty negligible.

This is very bad, Rob.

Assume you have Ax, where x is a card other than an ace.  With 5 opponents, there is roughly a 50% chance that none of them has an ace.  With 9 opponents, it's roughly 25% that none of them has an ace.  You will be up against another ace twice as often.

They're simply two different games.  You can't cut and paste.

EDIT:  Oops, you will be up against another ace 50% more often (2 of 4 vs. 3 of 4).

[robsmith82]

You will be up against another ace twice as often.

Not when 4 players have already folded.

I stick to my guns. 6 max players are better than full ring players as they can adapt far more easily to varying numbers of players.

[Deadmoney]

stick to my guns. 6 max players are better than full ring players as they can adapt far more easily to varying numbers of players.

............ I agree *guffaw*


Regards David

[Coughy_boy]

Not when 4 players have already folded.

This is irrelevant to the analysis.  The issue is the quality of your hand relative to the hands dealt to your opponents.  It doesn't matter who folds, in what order, any more than it matters whether the cards were dealt clockwise or counter-clockwise.

The same analysis holds true for .  It's not rocket surgery:  more opponents --> more spades --> more likely someone has two.  With 5 opponents, there is roughly a 22% chance one of your opponents has two spades.  With 9 opponents, that chance is nearly doubled.  So you put back in the muck it came from.

To rephrase, it's the difference between having a better hand than 5 other people, and having a better hand than 9 other people.  It doesn't matter in what order they act, or what action they take.  If you don't get that, GOOD LUCK.