[electrical]

Before I elaborate, I want to say I totally love this discussion, and I appreciate everyone taking the time to participate in it. It is about my favorite thing in the world next to scooping.

I also want to get two things out of the way: If I hold the Ace in the steal position described, I will be completing a great majority of the time, regardless of my cards. The point I was trying to make is that the strength of the hand is not purely random, because I will fold some dead hands regardless, and some others against certain opponents in favor of saving bullets for getting into confrontations with weaker players. I also think distribution prevents me from holding a "pure crap" hand in this position often enough to make playing an underpair against me hot-and-cold a no-brainer. More about that below.

[ QUOTE ]
Electrical

"If you're playing three-handed, that's a different story."

But we are playing 3 handed, BUT with 8 antes. The "different story" statement I don't get, because its this type of marginal play that makes the difference in winning and losing over the long run. You have to play these hands well, at the best price. If you don't, then you get no action when you do play.

[/ QUOTE ]

I am aware that I am not expert at this game, but this particular scenario and conclusion cconfuses me. Playing short-handed, I see much more action put in with marginal hands, and this makes sense intuitively: When you play three-handed, you have less than half the chance of running into a good hand, versus a full table, because there are fewer players who might pick up a good hand. Marginal holdings improve their relative strength short-handed. I see similar things said about other games on this forum all the time, so I don't think I'm out on a limb here. As an example, you see a lot of raises and re-raises put-in during heads-up Hold-em matches with holdings much weaker than you would see in full-ring blind battles, and that is a nearly analogous situation.

That five of the eight opponents at a full table have chosen not to play makes this presumed steal a reverse Monte Hall puzzle. Your group of opponents is still much more likely to have a good hand among them, and that group chance is condensed down to the last two opponents, one of whom has just raised into your Eights with an Ace showing.

Ignoring playing history and other information (which, as others have noted is more important), you are going to run into a decent hand there more often than at a table which is seated short-handed, because among the larger number of opponents at the table, you are more likely to run into a good hand somewhere.

If that is incorrect, please someone tell me why.

The extra antes offset that some, but stealing the antes is something you can do cheaply as the opportunities happen upon you (for example when you have a live Ace in late position and there is only an Eight and a Deuce left to get through), rather than spending five BB chasing them against an aggressor. I would much rather be stealing than defending in this hand for that reason.

I should explain something here. I think the live Ace should probably be completing here almost all the time. I make a distinction between the Ace completing for value, as a semi-bluff steal and a pure steal with a hand the eights dominate.

If the presumed stealer isn't stealing with a crap hand the overwhelming majority of the time, then raising with (85)8 can't be mandatory.

Is a pure crap hand that often even possible? Let's define a crap hand as having two unpaired hole cards, one of them an undercard to an Eight, and not a three-flush. Is that an overwhelming majority of possible holdings? It seems like we're accounting the first-rate Razz hands, plus a few more.

Without parsing it out, I don't think that is an overwhelming majority of possible Ace hands. I know that when I complete in a steal position, I often think my hand will play well against the remaining opponents even if they have some kind of little hand (the situation we're describing), and I don't think I am being dealt-to from a special deck.

Even if the villain thinks he is stealing, he may be doing so with a hand that isn't worse than a 3:2 dog, and the Eights are conveniently offering him better odds than that.

It seems to boil down to how often we believe the Ace is stealing with a hand we beat, and hands he might fold incorrectly. Everyone but me seems to think it is almost all the time. I know that when I'm stealing I don't hold a crap hand nearly that often, and I don't assume my unknown opponents do. I may be raising almost all the time, but it doesn't seem like my hand is pure Razz crap the overwhelming majority of the time.

Which brings us to the players. Certain opponents I do play back at, based on prior play, and I'll be happy to go to war with Eights against them. They will shoot themselves in the foot pretty regularly, and I want to be in the hand when they do it. That's why statements like "call 100 percent of the time" or "raise 100 percent of the time" make me uncomfortable. Sure, there are games where I will re-steal 100 percent of the time, or play back with Eights 100 percent of the time, but played in a vaccuum, or against unknowns, I tend to avoid situations where the payoff is small relative to the risk, and I don't see how card distribution can make us a strong enough favorite to overcome the substantial multi-BB losses we incur when we blindly call down to fold the river or make a payoff hand here.

Is it good poker to risk $100 for a possible extra nickle, when there will be a later opportunity to risk the $100 to make an extra $200? Possibly, in an absolute sense, but everyone's preferences in gambling form a spectrum, and I only have about one percent gamble in me. I think I can attack weak players profitably without getting stuck in awkward situations against unknowns, so I tend to play that way.

For those who suggest raising back with Eights, is there a split pair+kicker combination that you wouldn't play back with? Deuces with a Trey? Where do you draw the line?