Friday, July 20, 2007

The lure of the big catch

I have all but abandoned MTT's, both live and online. A brand new copy of Harrington on Hold'em Vol II has been lying unread in my shopping cart for over a year. I got through Vol I fairly briskly, but that's because of its relevance to cash games. Nevertheless, the blogosphere is a supprepository of valuable information for those wishing to hone their MTT skills.

Hoy, a successful though somewhat laconic tournament player, wrote a fine post on MTT resteals. Blinders then countered with an equally fine rejoinder. As a non-interested party, I found the whole thing fascinating. Any more exposure and I may be tempted to brush the dust off HOH Vol II.

I do, however, have a minor philosophical nit to pick with one of Blinders' assumptions:

I assume that the stealer's range is ahead of the restealer's range. You don't resteal with a big hand, that would be a reraise value bet, and not a "resteal". So we can eliminate all of the big hands from the restealer, but none of the big hands from the stealer, as he could legitimately have a big hand. The stealer here has at least a top 50% of hands range.

If we can "eliminate all of the big hands from the restealer" (value bet argument), then by the same logic we should be able to eliminate all the big hands from the stealer, as this wouldn't be a steal. I therefore fail to see why "the stealer's range is ahead of the restealer's range", given that they are both really "stealing".


Blinders said...

ok, the Hoy post was from the restealers perspective, and how restealing with ATC is better than stealing with ATC (again, just the beginning of the post). We have a late position rasier which is on a steal or rasing with a real hand (can't tell from the reraiser's perspective), and a restealer justifying an ATC all-in move. This is the specific example. A late position raise is ahead of ATC is it not? Any hand but ATC is ahead of ATC, unless the preflop raiser picks only especially bad hands to raise with.

Mr Subliminal said...

How do you define a late position steal? If the possibility of raising for value is included in our scenario, the subsequent action should be referred to as a steal rather than a re-steal.

Blinders said...

Steals work because they may or may not be "Steals". From the restealers perspective, he can't know if this is a real steal with something like ATC or a made hand betting for value, and disguised as a steal.

When you describe the value of "making a move with ATC", it is only a move if you actually do it with ATC. Reraise pushing from the BB with AA-JJ, AK, AQ is not a resteal, but a standard play. That's why I remove those types of hands from the restealers range. The post was about resteals.

My whole argument is that a Steal with ATC is a better play and has a larger expectation value that a resteal with ATC. I am a bit tired of everyone (not just Hoy) claiming that making moves with ATC is the only way to win MTTs without providing much back-up to the statement. I don't buy it.

Mr Subliminal said...

I understand now. Thanks, Blinders, for taking the time to clear it up for me.

Dillo said...

Great debate guys. I do see where Blinders is coming from, particularly regarding what would constitute a standard re-pop with a nice hand (AQ), as against pushing with crud (ATC). It makes sense. You've got to expect to lose when re-popping with crud. People are welcome to in my games any day of the week! I rarely lay down to a resteal anyway. I wouldn't be in the hand from early position without a serious cards.

And as for helping 'traffic', well it worked (with me) and I'm impressed with your blog Sub. Keep it up. I'll check back more regularly.

Mr Subliminal said...

Thanks, Dillo.

Schaubs said...

great post Sub. I enjoyed the debate as well.