A dynamic blind stealing methodology
 

I just like to know if i'm on the right track with my logic here. I've started to accumulate a lot of hands (000's) against my opponents at the LHE that I play.


If I know that for example, the SB has an 86% chance of folding and the BB has a 78% chance of folding, that would make a total chance of the blinds folding against a blind steal of 67.08%. Does that theoretically mean I could attempt to blind steal with the top 67% of hands? If not, how can we use this information to derive a hand range percentage that we would steal with?

I'm also looking at the CO position for blind steals. If I take the last example, and imply that the button will fold my from my raise 80% of the time, does that theoretically mean I could again raise with the top 53.6% of hands (0.86 x 0.78 x 0.80 = 0.536)? It seems absurd to me to raise that often, and i'm probably wrong. But again, how can we then use this information to make better blind stealing decisions?

Re: A dynamic blind stealing methodology
 

Just to note something, I'm not sure about the logic of the math you are applying, I'm not great at math tbh, but those stats you have may have something to do with the fact that they are adjusting to normal ABC betting patterns, which do not require them to open their calling/raising range. If you start raising 67% of your hands, I'm fairly certain they will take counter action, but I think on an intuitive scale, if they are playing that tight out of the blinds, you should definitely increase the number of hands you are raising, what percentage I cannot answer.

Re: A dynamic blind stealing methodology
 

I may be giving away too much information here but I'm a nice guy .

If you estimate that the blinds will both fold 2/3 of the time . Again assume the chances of either blind folding are equal to make life easier .This means that your value raises to your bluffs , should be in the ratio ~ 2:1 .

So if you believe that the top 33% of all hands should be raised for value , then you should be bluffing with an additional 16.5% of trash hands .

Intuitively , this means that if 2 players are more likely to fold their blinds , then you should be bluffing with a higher frequency .

Re: A dynamic blind stealing methodology
 

[ QUOTE ]
This means that your value raises to your bluffs , should be in the ratio ~ 2:1 .


[/ QUOTE ]

I sort of understand where your coming from. But how/why does a 66.6% chance of the blinds folding equate to a 2:1 ratio of value raises to bluffs? Okay, going on that, if I determined the collective chance to be 54% for example, would this ratio change? What hypothetical range could we come up with?

Re: A dynamic blind stealing methodology
 

In Sklansky's ToP, this is covered. It actually mentions that a 33% chance of fold by both blinds, would be enough to raise with ATC (any 2 cards).

The BB is playing too tight and folding too much.

But you should also consider whether the SB & BB play back, re-raising with weaker than normal hands, if you steal too frequently.

If the BB is a strong player, be less inclined to steal, they'll defend correctly, and with the added SB hands, you may find those easy steals become more expensive than you expected.

Re: A dynamic blind stealing methodology
 

Another important factor is how well you play postflop in relation to the blinds. The more mistakes they make postflop the more correct it is to try to steal because the times they defend you will have position on them and be able to exploit their mistakes.

Re: A dynamic blind stealing methodology
 

[ QUOTE ]
What hypothetical range could we come up with?

[/ QUOTE ]

Use pokerstove, slide the range bar to x percent and it will show what hands are in that range. Actual ranges in practice aren't really in this order, but this will give you a rough idea of what the top 30% of hands looks like.

There are other hand ranking charts that will help you, ones that aren't based on showdown value alone. General opening ranges doesn't have to be perfectly precise, they vary player to player somewhat anyway.

Helpful hint, try to pay attention to the range of hands that he 3-bets versus calls a raise with if he's ABC. This won't work at higher games, but lower some players act like they have a cheat sheet for how to play certain hands.

Re: A dynamic blind stealing methodology
 

[ QUOTE ]

If I know that for example, the SB has an 86% chance of folding and the BB has a 78% chance of folding, that would make a total chance of the blinds folding against a blind steal of 67.08%. Does that theoretically mean I could attempt to blind steal with the top 67% of hands?

[/ QUOTE ]
No. That's not close to correct.

[ QUOTE ]
If not, how can we use this information to derive a hand range percentage that we would steal with?

[/ QUOTE ]
For each hand, try to determine the average amount of money you will get back from the pot if you raise. If it is greater than the size of your raise, definitely don't fold. Against players who give up the blinds over 2/3 of the time, raising is better than folding with any two cards. It is conceivable that you would be better off limping instead of raising with some of your strongest hands against players who fold so much.

Note that there are no pure bluffs preflop, only semi-bluffs. If you raise with trash and get called, you might still win the hand. You should do better than folding as soon as your raise is called.

Re: A dynamic blind stealing methodology
 

If you don't raise with strongest hands, then your frequent raises for folds are easier to play back against. If you raise you haven't got a very good hand...

So wouldn't it make more sense to raise with the weakest hands (except bottom 10% so you open fold sometimes), and often the usual raising hands, but also occassionally limp with a mix of strongest and hands like JTs connectors which frequently catch flops.

That disguises the strategy more, so hopefully the BB won't wake up to their leak.