Blind (or can be stolen, nor can defend)
I think there are too many players advanced and quite interested in the game posed disastrously wrong to steal his blind ranges, and a few situations that play well but misunderstand it. I have already read many reviews about it and I've seen so many bizarre ranks fairly advanced players, from my humble position of fish playing NL50 and 100, yes, I'll try to think a little about the subject.
First of all, I invite everyone to filter out situations in their blind theft tracker and HM, as you will see the advantage of this situation is simply absurd, with winrate that haunt the BB/100 80 or more. Yes your winrate general is 4 BB/100, stealing blinds is 20 times more profitable than any situation in general. Not to mention when compared with the famous setmining, which supposedly is the source of income for all grinders of low limits.
The term 'blind stealing' is used for any raise in CO or BU against the blinds, which I guess means that many players up to 25% of its range from the button you think they are bluffing or 'stealing' blind. Let's see, if the player in the BB holds 20% of its range, and we went up to 25%, and that gives us an almost 50% equity against that player, far worse against sb, which will come less often in the hand. But that is of no equity, simply start position to have the rest of the hand is something that weighs infinitely more than the equity. I do not want to imagine what range of theft need to even scratch the EV post flop, but should be around 70% or 80%. The issue is that, against a player who defends the sb 10% and one at 20% bb, we will win the blinds preflop 72% of the time. If we lost our 4 bb rise ALWAYS play the flop, that would give a total EV of stealing blinds - (4 * 28) + (72 * 1.5) = - (112) + 128 = +16.
I do not know what I mean. For the term STEAL come to mind, what he would lose money playing the flop and win when you steal the blinds. But is that to lose money playing the flop would have to rank up absurdly high, because we have post-flop position and because wide ranges equitys level off the lot, a range of 20% has only a 55% equity against a 40% -. In other words, the difference in equity preflop Showdown theft of a range of 25% and a 40% is 2-3% of Quity. If we take 50%, there is another difference of 2% less on equity. But he still thinks 40 is a high theft from the button, we do not know why. By the way, the difference between stealing a 25% to 40% on the button in terms of non sd is 22.5 "despicable" BB/100, 15 more so for stealing 50% of the time. Since opponents will 3beta his top range, and we'll play against the two at the same time a small % Of times, our euquity is lower, which may make from 50% of theft on the button to see flops start to have a near zero EV-while not always see 150 bb/100- flops.
The case of robbery in the sb is different, because we have no position on the opponent. Still, having a hand over 50%, and have, on average, a better hand than the opponent. If, moreover, that player is pulled too-which always happens at low levels, "stop stealing with a wide range because you are going to play the hand out of position is a waste of money.
Blinds can not be stolen. Take something that is rightfully yours is not stealing . You're in position, and have a hand that is not utter garbage, then you belong a% dead huge money on the table: so I take it, if you do-that is, raise, eg, with a 25 to 30% range on the button, or 17% in the co-you're not stealing, you're going for value, a wide margin as well, and in any case you're leaving to steal the blinds, which will dead money that a larger share than their rightful .
Then there is the famous phrase 'defend the blinds. " Let's see, the blind is not yours, is on the table. All you have to do with the blind, is that you can call a raise or a reraise to make cheaper, 1 bb bb or half as big or small you are blind , or, so being out of position the entire hand, is a ridiculous advantage, not to say that basically this 'advantage' is a problem for a bad player. When you do 3bet in sb or bb, you're not defending your blind ... are the 4 bb attacking another player has put on the table. If that player is pulled too or equal too your upload, you earn money with it. But the point is to attack the whole pot, which is 5.5 bb, and do not defend your blind, it also is not yours. Saying things like 'I do not advocate blind because so little money' or 'because at my level are stolen very little', is to have completely lost the north on the situation of the game that is not 'theft', but a hand of poker with his boat, his odds etc. etc. .. I do not see defenses and theft, that sounds like a movie, what I see is a boat, a range of PFR and 3bet fold, some odds, the notes I have of a player and the strength of my hand. If a player only blind steals with 17% in the button, it is absurd to throw 55 because he 'did not steal Cagan. " If we call up the value of linking a set to 'get the box', we made a bread with some hosts, because we would have stakcearle maso least one of every 5 times to retrieve the 308 bb -88 preflop let us out of 100 times we pay 3.5 bb preflop. Not to mention the rake and the Palm 100 times against overset bb, straight or flush. What to do in such a case is to see what hands to keep the player and turn up 3bet mercilessly with either hand with some implied if you just hold the top5 of their hands, or if it holds a lot but strip too much post-flop 3bet certainly doing likely get the box set with and Stock ligand pocket starts to be reasonable.
Another thing I read a lot of full ring is that there are less blind stealing in shorthanded. Let's see, a table of 10 or 9 players to a six, are discarded 4 or 6 cards in the deck because the first three players throw their cards, which, as those cards are bad because they have been folded, must make half the letters of which are better left to talk, I guess this is the logic to argue that you have to steal less full ring, since there is no other possible motive. Does anyone really seriously believes that it can weigh both possible hands of the two blind-or bu if we are in co-as we have to lose 5 or 10% of our range of steal? 10%! Everyone seems to agree on the forums in which 30% is "a good full ring pair steal" and that "40% is shorthanded" Why 4 or 6 outs in the deck discarded low ?
If we could play defense statistically 1-2% less, surprised me, but maybe 10max to those 10-12 5max 4max outs or discarded if they have such weight (although it should see that a fold from 10max UTG does not involve two low cards at all, in fact be two figures perfectly). Simply, one thing has nothing to do with the other: if steal or not is independent of the number of players who have spoken from behind, are 3 or 5 or 6 players. what anyone says, of course, is precisely shorthanded players are more accustomed steal playing situations, even at lower levels, which , look for where to steal should weigh less in shorthanded in full ring, and not vice versa. If a player shorthanded 3betea me 12% in the blind has a fold of 75%, and one full 3betea me 5% and has a fold steal 90%, as there is to do a lot of numbers to find out what I can steal it profitably and Stock 2 cards and what not. And find a player like that, I mean the first case-in NL50 or NL100 in full ring is almost impossible, while shorthanded is far more likely.
Finally, I will speak of "steal" the blinds in micro-stakes. Many players do not 'blind stealing' in micro-stakes because the micro-stakes players 'do not stop stealing'. The point is that if so you are going, eg, 20% on the button, you are giving such a large amount of value which do slowplay, checks on the river with strong hands and two fishes ma , s, will cost you level up no matter how micro-stakes never be. If a player defends 40% in the bb, ie, just turn up to 40% of our range we IMMEDIATE sd EV, let us postflop position and also because that player is clearly put him based exploitable value bets. That part of the 30 BB/100 of difference between top 20% and 40% of the non sd range preflop.
Greetings to everyone!
