Razz - Thin value bets on 6th and 7th

[RustyBrooks]

He doesn't say "the player definitely needs to be stealing". It actualys says "if your opponent MAY be stealing". As the only remaining low card on the board except you, this is a steal kind of a lot. In fact there is only about a 20% chance he has a 3 card 8, and if he doesn't, he'll probably bet often anyway.

[Praxising]

[ QUOTE ]
He doesn't say "the player definitely needs to be stealing". It actualys says "if your opponent MAY be stealing".

[/ QUOTE ]
Rusty, you really shoulda been a rabbi.
[ QUOTE ]
As the only remaining low card on the board except you, this is a steal kind of a lot.

[/ QUOTE ] Gosh, ya think? And when there are 5 players, no matter what the position, this is a real hand, kind of a lot. Fun, isn't it? Everyone gets to use their best judgment in situations and not have to do something in a book written by one guy who can't even walk on water. [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

[RustyBrooks]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
He doesn't say "the player definitely needs to be stealing". It actualys says "if your opponent MAY be stealing".

[/ QUOTE ]
Rusty, you really shoulda been a rabbi.


[/ QUOTE ]

Look, if you're going to invoke Sklansky, and claim that he tells you you shouldn't always raise here, I'm going to refer to the same work, and show that he does.

[ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
As the only remaining low card on the board except you, this is a steal kind of a lot.

[/ QUOTE ] Gosh, ya think? And when there are 5 players, no matter what the position, this is a real hand, kind of a lot. Fun, isn't it?

[/ QUOTE ]

What's the ratio of times that this is a steal, compared to a raise? Or here's another question, how often would you expect the person with the 2nd to last low card to fold here? This appears to be the crucial distinction (sort of). I have an idea of what the ratio is (I'd say steal:realhand is somewhere between 1:1 and 2:1) but personally I don't think the ratio matters because raising is never -ev and calling sometimes is.

[SGspecial]

[ QUOTE ]
What's the ratio of times that this is a steal, compared to a raise? Or here's another question, how often would you expect the person with the 2nd to last low card to fold here?

[/ QUOTE ]
I was just playing some 5-handed 30/60, and the frequency of the 2nd to last low card doing anything but raising (Pokerstars, FTW) was 0. Maybe -1% actually.

[RustyBrooks]

At larger games I am sure it's almost 0. In small stakes I would bet 2nd to last low card folds 50% of the time. I'll check some time when I'm not (as) busy.

Oh - and it's a bit less on pokerstars because the ante is smaller. I don't auto-steal as fragrantly there as on full tilt.

[RustyBrooks]

Heh, fragrantly. I meant flagrantly.

[SGspecial]

[ QUOTE ]
Oh - and it's a bit less on pokerstars because the ante is smaller. I don't auto-steal as fragrantly there as on full tilt.

[/ QUOTE ]
So you're the one...

[tinkerman]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Oh - and it's a bit less on pokerstars because the ante is smaller. I don't auto-steal as fragrantly there as on full tilt.

[/ QUOTE ]
So you're the one...

[/ QUOTE ]

I thought the idea is you want to steal from 2nd or 3rd low out as much as possible and the odds were good. If you are only called, then you have a second chance of winning on 4th.

If another low raises, then you should give it up (but its hard to do), you also don't want to steal to often as people will note it and play back with lesser hands. Therefore you limit your steals so you have at least 2 low cards (of course one being the door).

If you are after somebody who may be stealing then you raise and his proper move should be fold. If not you are going to 5th and haver the right odds to do so. You are getting rid of his second chance of winning.

I'm really surprised that this isn't more common at higher levels. I assume the last low still steals if nobody else does [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img] If this isn't the case then please tell me the game [img]/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img]

[Praxising]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
He doesn't say "the player definitely needs to be stealing". It actualys says "if your opponent MAY be stealing".

[/ QUOTE ]
Rusty, you really shoulda been a rabbi.


[/ QUOTE ]

Look, if you're going to invoke Sklansky, and claim that he tells you you shouldn't always raise here, I'm going to refer to the same work, and show that he does.

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm sorry if you felt offended, it wasn't my intention. As a spiritual writer I deal a lot with "letter of the law" and "spirit of the law" issues the comment was just an offhand joke.

However, it might not be a bad thing in poker discussions to remember that it says in Scripture that the law leads to sin. "Sin" which can be defined as "missing the mark" or "setting a trap-stick." Strict adherence to the law is a sure way to fail, IOW.

[RustyBrooks]

I'm not offended. I was just pointing out that you made an appeal to an authority, which doesn't seem to be warranted.