SHC or StealRaise chart? :?

    • tiagosilva
      tiagosilva
      Bronze
      Joined: 10.05.2007 Posts: 3,688
      i was reading these articles:

      http://www.pokerstrategy.com/strategy/sng/609/
      and
      http://www.pokerstrategy.com/strategy/sng/611/

      about the 14-24BB SnG phase and the stealraises but the information seems a bit conflicting.

      say u have 20BB on your stack and u have JJ on MP.

      there's a raise from the early position, just one, and u go and check the 1st article and it says... Go all in with exactly one raise in all positions.

      but the 2nd says .. fold

      this is just one of the examples, the 1st chart is your position oriented and the 2nd is position who raised oriented so there are more examples of this.

      the way i get it, is that the stealraise chart should be use in the case of no one calling the initial raise, and the 1st chart otherwise, but if this is the case.. if we take the example above you are saying:
      if u have 20BB's in MP and hold JJ, and one of the early position raises u fold.. but if one of them raise and other early calls, u go all in?.
      I mean if we fold to one raiser, why are we going all in with one raise and a call? we certainly have less fold equity and we surely are behind most of the time, is it because of the odds on a big pot? doesn't make sense to me.

      Is this a mistake? is there something i'm not grasping?
      anyhow i think this should be seen and reviewed.

      PS: i'm from the Portuguese forum, but i think here it will get more attention, hopefully it gets to the writers of these charts/articles.
  • 8 replies
    • tiagosilva
      tiagosilva
      Bronze
      Joined: 10.05.2007 Posts: 3,688
      bump!
    • RMB
      RMB
      Bronze
      Joined: 29.03.2008 Posts: 599
      If you are to steal raise i believe there should be no callers.

      And your not in a push or fold position either.

      Now to call it depends on the amount that the opponent raised... Like 6 BB means you should fold. because thats too much..

      Continue reading all articles and it will be clearer.

      BTW, you have to give the stack value of the one that raised and the one that called.
    • chenny8888
      chenny8888
      Bronze
      Joined: 03.10.2007 Posts: 19,324
      if someone in EP raises and you have JJ with no set value to call, the correct move is definitely fold.
    • tiagosilva
      tiagosilva
      Bronze
      Joined: 10.05.2007 Posts: 3,688
      Originally posted by RMB
      If you are to steal raise i believe there should be no callers.

      And your not in a push or fold position either.

      Now to call it depends on the amount that the opponent raised... Like 6 BB means you should fold. because thats too much..

      Continue reading all articles and it will be clearer.

      BTW, you have to give the stack value of the one that raised and the one that called.
      i'm directly aplying the articles, nothing made this clear.

      i'm considering standart raise sizes, of course.

      you are correct by saying that there sould be no callers to steal raise, but then again, NOTHIHG that i've wrote contradicts this, because the example where one calls, we apply the SHC.

      and you not correct saying that i should consider calling, because in 14-24 BB phase, you play your hands agressivly, check the chart, NO CALLS.

      Still doesnt make sense!
      What i wrote i wrote strictly based on the articles, if your going to clear this thing at least read them.
    • tiagosilva
      tiagosilva
      Bronze
      Joined: 10.05.2007 Posts: 3,688
      Originally posted by chenny8888
      if someone in EP raises and you have JJ with no set value to call, the correct move is definitely fold.
      you dont play for set value with 14-24 BB in a SnG, you dont even call, EVER. Did you read the articles?
    • Dippy19
      Dippy19
      Bronze
      Joined: 04.12.2007 Posts: 1,346
      Your not right. The first article says to go all in with JJ if there was one raise, no meter the position, and the second article says that if there was a raise from middle position go all in for a steal raise with pairs from AA-TT.

      So the articles don't contradict each other, correct me if I'm wrong.

      Ups, wrong :D . You are right they do contradict. I misread them. Well I guess that stage is so situational that you have to decide. If the opponent is very tight you fold JJ if he is loose than he can easy ally hold a weaker hand, so you go all in. But on the other hand if he is ultra tight you can steal the blinds with an all in.

      It all depends on the situation.
    • chenny8888
      chenny8888
      Bronze
      Joined: 03.10.2007 Posts: 19,324
      if he's ultra tight then you also have low fold equity as any hand that he raises he's also willing to call an all-in with...


      i see what you mean now... the articles just seem to be contradictory :)
    • Dippy19
      Dippy19
      Bronze
      Joined: 04.12.2007 Posts: 1,346
      Originally posted by chenny8888
      if he's ultra tight then you also have low fold equity as any hand that he raises he's also willing to call an all-in with...


      i see what you mean now... the articles just seem to be contradictory :)
      Depends on how you interpret ultra tight. I understand it like he would for example raise QQ from early, but he would only go all in with KK or AA.

      But your right chenny, it is more probable that he would raise only with hands he is willing to go all in with.

      Like I said it's situational, you have to know your opponent to make the right decision, and sometimes it's hard to just classify them as tight, loose or "ultra" tight. In turneys I think some people play very mixed stiles and it also depends on your table image sooo.... It all depends of the situation.

      I was actually suprised that there is a SHC for Sng and turneys, but ok, it's a good one for getting far without wasting chips, but a steal reraise chart is kind off strange in my opinion since it mostly depends on the opponent.

      So anyway, we all agree that the charts are contradictory. OK that's all.