Discuss: Importance of stealing blinds

In nl ring.

Extremely important for staying afloat while playing a loose agressive style. Also encourages action on your big hands in position.

That's pretty much what I thought, it doesn't do much to your overall winrate by the monetary amount of the blind because it's so small compared to stack sizes (hopefully) but raising more gets you more action

Originally Posted by midas06

That's pretty much what I thought, it doesn't do much to your overall winrate by the monetary amount of the blind because it's so small compared to stack sizes (hopefully) but raising more gets you more action

The direct effect on your ptbb/100 is more pronounced than you might think. If you steal the blinds 67 times thats a stack, not to mention the c-bets that are successful.

I think a good blind stealer can add about 1 BB/100 to his winrate just by stealing the blinds, not even taking into account the pots that are won post-flop.

I started out stealing blinds as a way to float above the blnds while nit camping. Now it's turned my game from nitty to semi-lagg and has been relatively profitable for me via table image, stealing hands flopping monsters, etc.

Biggest thing to learn when stealing blinds is that it doesn't always work and to make sure you're not hurting yourself more than you're helping.

Blind stealing is incredibly important and I think it does have a big direct impact on winrate, this article basically sums it up:
http://mypokermatch.com/poker-articl...d-Stealing-195

What about the importance of defending your blinds? Lets say you have a notorious blind stealer to your right. How much should you alter your game/range to defend your blinds and what effect would this have on your win rate?

Originally Posted by 2_Thumbs_Up

What about the importance of defending your blinds? Lets say you have a nororious blind stealer to your right. How much should you alter your game/range to defend your blinds and what effect would this have on your win rate?

small stakes players call to much
so reraise
players in general call to much
so reraise

the game begins as a battle for the blinds everything after that is wholly dependant on what you are trying to acheive from the game.

the big thing is getting otherwise solid players to start spewing back at you with very marginal holdings.

Originally Posted by Miffed22001

the game begins as a battle for the blinds

NLHE is a very funny form of poker in that this statement is less true than in just about every other game.

Lots of NLHE action is player generated.
Lots of NLHE games are more a battle to play the sucker(s) than a battle to grab the blinds.

Originally Posted by 2_Thumbs_Up

What about the importance of defending your blinds? Lets say you have a nororious blind stealer to your right. How much should you alter your game/range to defend your blinds and what effect would this have on your win rate?

This is actually something I have been wondering about too, I feel I do a good job with the steals but when it comes to defending my blinds Im not sure when I should be calling ro when I should be raising or even what hands are too weak to be defending with.

Anybody have any input on this?

Originally Posted by andy-akb

Originally Posted by 2_Thumbs_Up

What about the importance of defending your blinds? Lets say you have a nororious blind stealer to your right. How much should you alter your game/range to defend your blinds and what effect would this have on your win rate?

This is actually something I have been wondering about too, I feel I do a good job with the steals but when it comes to defending my blinds Im not sure when I should be calling ro when I should be raising or even what hands are too weak to be defending with.

Anybody have any input on this?

I don't worry overmuch about defending until I have a chronic stealer on my right. Then I believe you need to defend aggressively, more to send the message that you won't tolerate it than anything else. One of the best hands to do it with is SCs. Reraise, get a fold, then show. Basically you're telling the guy that you'll play back at him with a wide range so he better have cards if he's going to try that shit. Usually, they cut their steal attempts down substantially (saving you blinds), and when they do try it you're fairly sure they have a hand.

Edit: Actually, showing a penchant for reraising from the blinds period usually cuts down on steal attempts.

Miffed22001 wrote:
the game begins as a battle for the blinds


NLHE is a very funny form of poker in that this statement is less true than in just about every other game.

Lots of NLHE action is player generated.
Lots of NLHE games are more a battle to play the sucker(s) than a battle to grab the blinds.

I never thought of it this way, particularly at small stakes where people will play for enjoyment/thrill of the game.

this reminds me of this thread i found...

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/sh...=0#Post5348855

another one:

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/sh...Number=6073737

Typically I struggle with being too tight and passive. However, at the weak/tight 100NL games I play at I'm a monster from the button with pretty much any two cards. You can take down sooooo many pots on the flop, and you're opponents pretty much never wise.

Stealing blinds is very important because it adds bb/100. i'd say at least 1, easily more when considering the extra action you get when you have a reputation for stealing pots. i think it is more important in 6max than full ring, especially at lower levels where IMO there isn't a ton of blind action because there are always limpers or raisers, but in 6max it folds around a lot more and is a lot bigger deal.

Defend your blinds when you think someone is raising you light and you have a hand you think is ahead of their range. Or, when you think they'll fold.

obv being a competent player helps. don't get stacked with 87s over 1bb.

Originally Posted by Fnord

NLHE is a very funny form of poker in that this statement is less true than in just about every other game.

Lots of NLHE action is player generated.
Lots of NLHE games are more a battle to play the sucker(s) than a battle to grab the blinds.

pretty much sums up what I originally thought

Originally Posted by midas06

Originally Posted by Fnord

NLHE is a very funny form of poker in that this statement is less true than in just about every other game.

Lots of NLHE action is player generated.
Lots of NLHE games are more a battle to play the sucker(s) than a battle to grab the blinds.

pretty much sums up what I originally thought

is this so true at high stakes if we assume a real fish doesnt sit down.
What happens if this is the only scenario, i.e you play high stakes poker with the top pros.

Originally Posted by Miffed22001

is this so true at high stakes if we assume a real fish doesnt sit down.
What happens if this is the only scenario, i.e you play high stakes poker with the top pros.

They play with an Ante and fight for blinds. That being said, a lot of middle to high stakes games have a texture where there are 1-3 live ones at the table, a few medicore players and a few strong players fighting it out.

Different game, but same adjustment. I made a lot of money at 2/4 and 3/6 when I figured out that the multi-table nits gave up way too much value by letting me have my way with the terrible players. When a terrible player enters the pot, you don't need as much of a hand, when you can lock-up position and dead blind money.

Another thought exercise... What's the difference between you posting a blind and a guy who plays way too many hands, out of position and plays badly post-flop? The later is probably worth a lot more money than your blind. Hence, it's more important to get more than your fair share of the sucker's action than it is to lose the least from your blind.

Originally Posted by Fnord

Originally Posted by Miffed22001

is this so true at high stakes if we assume a real fish doesnt sit down.
What happens if this is the only scenario, i.e you play high stakes poker with the top pros.

They play with an Ante and fight for blinds. That being said, a lot of middle to high stakes games have a texture where there are 1-3 live ones at the table, a few medicore players and a few strong players fighting it out.

Different game, but same adjustment. I made a lot of money at 2/4 and 3/6 when I figured out that the multi-table nits gave up way too much value by letting me have my way with the terrible players. When a terrible player enters the pot, you don't need as much of a hand, when you can lock-up position and dead blind money.

Another thought exercise... What's the difference between you posting a blind and a guy who plays way too many hands, out of position and plays badly post-flop? The later is probably worth a lot more money than your blind. Hence, it's more important to get more than your fair share of the sucker's action than it is to lose the least from your blind.

can this work as effectivly for NL games as it does lhe?
In limit teh fishy can only lose a limited fixed amount per hand (afterall, he/she thinks its only one more bet) and isnt scared particularly if we bet/raise every street against him for value.
the fish dont like it afterall when we raise a few too many streets for value...

My blind stealing stats for month of July

Stake: 200nl 10-max
No. hands: 26,160
VPIP/PFR (for table image purposes): 16/10

Chances to steal blinds: 1564
Attempts to steal blinds: 509
%age: 32.54

Success rate: 60.12%

Initial pot is 3 dollars and preflop raise is 7 dollars.

So lets calculate this. I bet 7 dollars to win 10 dollars 509 times. When called, I have a certain amount of equity, plus the positional advantage.

My range when stealing the blinds, for the purposes of this calculation is about 35% of hands I am dealt :

22+, A2s+, K6s+, T7s+, 75s+, 54s+, A7o+, K9o+, 97o+, 76o+

The calling range of the avg player in the blinds, about 18-20%:

22+, ATs+, KTs+, QTs+, JTs, ATo+, KTo+, QTo+, JTo+


Text results appended to pokerstove.txt

174,021,455,520 games 270.844 secs 642,515,453 games/sec

Board:
Dead:

equity (%) win (%) tie (%)
Hand 1: 43.8850 % 42.52% 01.37% { 22+, A2s+, K6s+, Q9s+, J8s+, T7s+, 97s+, 86s+, 75s+, 65s, 54s, A7o+, K9o+, QTo+, J9o+, T8o+, 97o+, 87o, 76o }
Hand 2: 56.1150 % 54.75% 01.37% { 22+, ATs+, KTs+, QTs+, JTs, ATo+, KTo+, QTo+, JTo }


My range has about 44% equity vs. his range, not even considering the fold equity I will have on the flop or the implied odds I will have.


Total amount wagered = $7 x 509 = $3563

Total amount won uncontested= 509 x .6012 x $10 = $3060

Total equity when called= 509 x (1-.6012) x $10 x 0.44 = $893

Total EV = $3060 + $893 - $3563 = $390 total

So the actual ev is pretty meager. But it does matter. This was responsible for almost 1/2 a ptbb/100 of my winrate. I have also run fairly poorly this month so my rate of success might be a little lower than optimal.

Also the $390 is in addition to they edge I will have on the flop. The continuation bet if used correctly will be positive EV as well. Then there is the chance we flop big and villain has an overpair or something. After all, our hand is easy to get away from usually.

I'm a habitual blind stealer in NL Ring, but after reading NLHE Theory & Practice I'm starting to rethink it a bit.

"Concept No. 55: Unlike limit, limping first in on the button is frequently correct.... In no-limit... the equation changes a lot. Blind stealing becomes far less important in general. Because instead of being 10 percent of a big pot, blinds can be 1 percent or less of the big ones. It doesn't make much sense to forgo a shot to win the blinds when the best you can hope for is a win of ten times more. But when you can hope to win 50 or 100 times more, you might not want to steal the blinds at all. Indeed, raising in deep stack no limit is rarely intended to steal the blinds. It's used to get value for good hands, manipulate the pot size, semi-bluff, and for other reasons. If everyone folds to you on the button, and you raise, you're usually doing it because you want to build a pot while you have position, not because you want to win the paltry blind money." (Italics are mine.)

This book is really challenging my NL ring thought process. Sklansky & Miller even advocate occasional min-raises!

Yeah, I haven't fully adapted yet but sometimes I'll raise from the button after all folds with a hand like J9. Then I'll think bugger! Why win the blinds when I could possibly win a big hand. It would be better to limp it and play the hand.

Originally Posted by EricE

Yeah, I haven't fully adapted yet but sometimes I'll raise from the button after all folds with a hand like J9. Then I'll think bugger! Why win the blinds when I could possibly win a big hand. It would be better to limp it and play the hand.

Exactly. I've started to limit my button raises to premium hands, Ax, Kx and junk. And I've been limping suited aces, connectors, gappers and unsuited connectors. Thoughts?

Originally Posted by zook

Originally Posted by EricE

Yeah, I haven't fully adapted yet but sometimes I'll raise from the button after all folds with a hand like J9. Then I'll think bugger! Why win the blinds when I could possibly win a big hand. It would be better to limp it and play the hand.

Exactly. I've started to limit my button raises to premium hands, Ax, Kx and junk. And I've been limping suited aces, connectors, gappers and unsuited connectors. Thoughts?

Same here. So far it is working well. The question becomes, where is your cut off. Like if you have KQs on the button with all folds, raise or call. Same hand but with limpers, raise or call? For the time being I am just mixing it up and maybe that is optimal.

Originally Posted by EricE

Like if you have KQs on the button with all folds, raise or call. Same hand but with limpers, raise or call? For the time being I am just mixing it up and maybe that is optimal.

I'm still open-raising KQs, KQo, QJs, KJs from the button... when the flop brings a draw with these hands, there's a good chance it hit someone else who called with broadways. I agree that where to make the limp/raise cut-off is the question.. mine is around JTs/T9s and QJo/JTo right now. Still experimenting though.

Originally Posted by EricE

Originally Posted by zook

Originally Posted by EricE

Yeah, I haven't fully adapted yet but sometimes I'll raise from the button after all folds with a hand like J9. Then I'll think bugger! Why win the blinds when I could possibly win a big hand. It would be better to limp it and play the hand.

Exactly. I've started to limit my button raises to premium hands, Ax, Kx and junk. And I've been limping suited aces, connectors, gappers and unsuited connectors. Thoughts?

Same here. So far it is working well. The question becomes, where is your cut off. Like if you have KQs on the button with all folds, raise or call. Same hand but with limpers, raise or call? For the time being I am just mixing it up and maybe that is optimal.

Raise. It comes down to what hands you want to play in a raised pot. KQs is one because you'll often be holding TPGK (more often than anything else) and the last thing you want is Kxo/Qx0 in there catching their two pair on the flop, while hands you are playing strictly for their two pair/straight/flush/boat value are easier to get away from if you don't hit the flop hard.

Originally Posted by Warpe

Raise. It comes down to what hands you want to play in a raised pot. KQs is one because you'll often be holding TPGK (more often than anything else) and the last thing you want is Kxo/Qx0 in there catching their two pair on the flop, while hands you are playing strictly for their two pair/straight/flush/boat value are easier to get away from if you don't hit the flop hard.

The games I play are fairly loose passive. Also, people are willing to lose a lot with a split pair of Ks with a bad kicker…in a limped pot. In a case like this I can’t force Kx, Qx out of the pot and I don’t want to. I want them to come along and call down all the way. If they make 2 pair then bully for them but they have the same odds I do. I think it is debatable which is the better play in this case. Raise it up and you make the pots bigger but put the fear of being out kicked into them…it makes it easier for them to fold out their TPBK.

On the other hand, if I limp in then they will happily call all the way with TP. I think the deception here has merit. Enough that I am not willing always raise or always limp. I mix it up.

In the case where enough have already folded then one of you reasons for raising goes away; you already have isolation. Limping is fine here IMO.

i get all in from the button a lot.
thoughts?

Originally Posted by Miffed22001

Originally Posted by Fnord

Another thought exercise... What's the difference between you posting a blind and a guy who plays way too many hands, out of position and plays badly post-flop? The later is probably worth a lot more money than your blind. Hence, it's more important to get more than your fair share of the sucker's action than it is to lose the least from your blind.

can this work as effectivly for NL games as it does lhe?
In limit teh fishy can only lose a limited fixed amount per hand (afterall, he/she thinks its only one more bet) and isnt scared particularly if we bet/raise every street against him for value.
the fish dont like it afterall when we raise a few too many streets for value...

In NLHE the fish playing a weak hand out of position is in far worse shape and the blinds are less likely to fustrate what you're trying to do.

Originally Posted by zook

I'm a habitual blind stealer in NL Ring, but after reading NLHE Theory & Practice I'm starting to rethink it a bit.

"Concept No. 55: Unlike limit, limping first in on the button is frequently correct"

Layne Flack on Cardplayer's "The Circuit" went as far as saying that raising frequently from the button in NL is actually a big mistake.

Unlike LHE, blind defense in loose NL games is a effectively a waste of time.

I'd prefer to focus on stealing limped & dead money by making the right pre-flop moves at the right time with or without a hand then I would focus on using position to just steal the blinds. Far more money to be made doing this than winning the 1.5 BB with each successful blind-steal attempt.