The 30/15/10 Rule

[spoonitnow]

Muzzard coined the following bit of information the "30/15/10 Rule" during one of our coaching sessions dealing with blind attack and defense.

Whenever you steal the blinds in the SB (raising to 4x), if the BB continues with 30% or less of his starting hands, then you at least break even just from fold equity, assuming you're neutral EV post-flop.

Whenever you steal the blinds in the BU (raising to 4x), if the SB and BB continue with 15% or less of their starting hands each, then you at least break even just from fold equity, assuming you're neutral EV post-flop.

Whenever you steal the blinds in the CO (raising to 4x), if the BU and SB and BB continue with 10% or less of their starting hands each, then you at least break even just from fold equity, assuming you're neutral EV post-flop.

And that's the 30/15/10 Rule.

[wellrounded08]

For some of us who don't fully understand what you mean by "Assuming you are neutral EV post-flop"

can you elabirate?

[spoonitnow]

For some of us who don't fully understand what you mean by "Assuming you are neutral EV post-flop"

can you elabirate?

Assuming you open fold every time you see a flop regardless of what it is or what your cards are. That is, no +EV or -EV post-flop.

[jolub]

So how do you defend againist some one who is trying this on you?

[JKDS]

continue with more than that range?

[bjsaust]

For one thing stop thinking of it as defence. Theres nothing to defend, the blinds are the price you pay to play. Instead the question is "how should I adjust to a player opening a wide range IP, when I'm getting a good price OOP?".

[bjsaust]

continue with more than that range?

WAY too simplistic. For both you and jolub, notice there was nothing in Spoons OP about ranges. You could have someone raising only 5% of hands from the SB and he STILL only needs you to call 30% or less and its a profitable raise even if he folds postflop (which obviously he wont). Playing a range greater than 30% of hands to a 5% openning range is obviously not a good plan.

Lol, even I made the assumption of a wide range in my last response . Anyway, how you play v's someone in a blind v blind situation depends on their ranges.

[wellrounded08]

Umm, if we're talking micro's......Just fold? really, no big deal. I say call hands that are ahead of villains range, raise hands that are obvious raises.

The reason being, it's micro stakes, why get a bunch of money in OOP?
That's my fishy opinion.

[bjsaust]

why get a bunch of money in OOP?

Wheee!!! You win a

[wellrounded08]

why get a bunch of money in OOP?

Wheee!!! You win a

Umm BB should continue with more hands than SB

[yourfather]

Not trying to argue what might just be semantics, but wouldn't open folding post flop be neg EV? And I understand that its hypothetical.

[Muzzard]

Not trying to argue what might just be semantics, but wouldn't open folding post flop be neg EV? And I understand that its hypothetical.

When your deciding whether to raise or call and what is most +EV folding is always 0EV as you can't lose any money by folding.

[yourfather]

Not trying to argue what might just be semantics, but wouldn't open folding post flop be neg EV? And I understand that its hypothetical.

When your deciding whether to raise or call and what is most +EV folding is always 0EV as you can't lose any money by folding.

Surely folding the nuts is -EV

Not trying to argue what might just be semantics, but wouldn't open folding post flop be neg EV? And I understand that its hypothetical.

When your deciding whether to raise or call and what is most +EV folding is always 0EV as you can't lose any money by folding.

Surely folding the nuts is -EV

You can't LOSE MONEY BY FOLDING

whatever money you had in your stack you still have
it's EXACTLY 0 EV to fold

it's sometimes EV+ to bet with the nuts

[kmind]

Umm, if we're talking micro's......Just fold? really, no big deal. I say call hands that are ahead of villains range, raise hands that are obvious raises.

The reason being, it's micro stakes, why get a bunch of money in OOP?
That's my fishy opinion.

Congrats on your gold star but if we can get villain to fold hands ahead of our range then we get two gold stars.

[kmind]

Not trying to argue what might just be semantics, but wouldn't open folding post flop be neg EV? And I understand that its hypothetical.

When your deciding whether to raise or call and what is most +EV folding is always 0EV as you can't lose any money by folding.

Surely folding the nuts is -EV

You can't LOSE MONEY BY FOLDING

whatever money you had in your stack you still have
it's EXACTLY 0 EV to fold

it's sometimes EV+ to bet with the nuts

right.
Yourfather - it's LESS EV than continuing with the nuts but still not -EV

[spoonitnow]

Not trying to argue what might just be semantics, but wouldn't open folding post flop be neg EV? And I understand that its hypothetical.

It's neutral EV, or 0 EV, no matter what cards you hold because you don't lose money doing it. If you hold the nuts, Villain goes all-in and it's $50 to call in a pot of $1000, the EV of calling is +$1000 and the EV of folding is $0.

[sarbox68]

So the moral of the story to my somewhat limited mental capacity...

- Open up ATS, esp vs any vils with fold-to-steal up to the % discussed, and vry low 3-bet vs. steal
- Tighten up c-bet when called as a) these folks are not-folding with the up-end of their range and b) c-betting poorly is what will f-k the EV of these steals up...

is this close?

[bjsaust]

Adjust to villains, but I make a steady stream of profit from:

1. People who combine stealing too much and c-betting too much.

2. People who "defend their blinds" by 3-bet bluffing too much and allowing me to play big pots in position.

However it depends. Some people "defend" by calling wide and then c/f'ing too much. Some people will call wide and donk bet if they hit. Some people will call too wide and donkbet if they miss. Some people will bet all turns if you raise p/f and check behind flop (or if you're in SB and they're in BB they bet if you check flop). Work out what your opponent is doing wrong and make $s from them.

[sarbox68]

Adjust to villains, but I make a steady stream of profit from:

1. People who combine stealing too much and c-betting too much.

2. People who "defend their blinds" by 3-bet bluffing too much and allowing me to play big pots in position.

However it depends. Some people "defend" by calling wide and then c/f'ing too much. Some people will call wide and donk bet if they hit. Some people will call too wide and donkbet if they miss. Some people will bet all turns if you raise p/f and check behind flop (or if you're in SB and they're in BB they bet if you check flop). Work out what your opponent is doing wrong and make $s from them.

Cliff notes version...

Some people will do something and then something else. Get reads. Get paid.

Did I miss anything?

[spoonitnow]

Adjust to villains, but I make a steady stream of profit from:

1. People who combine stealing too much and c-betting too much.

2. People who "defend their blinds" by 3-bet bluffing too much and allowing me to play big pots in position.

However it depends. Some people "defend" by calling wide and then c/f'ing too much. Some people will call wide and donk bet if they hit. Some people will call too wide and donkbet if they miss. Some people will bet all turns if you raise p/f and check behind flop (or if you're in SB and they're in BB they bet if you check flop). Work out what your opponent is doing wrong and make $s from them.

In your opinion, is 15% of starting hands too much? If so, explain why.

[bjsaust]

I guess the other side of that coin, is work out if your opponent is playing well v's you and stop playing into their game. I've had guys with like 70% steal from SB when I'm in BB and I constantly take their $s through a variety of means, and yet every time its folded to them they keep on trying to steal and giving me more money. A complete failure to adjust.

[sarbox68]

I've had guys with like 70% steal from SB when I'm in BB and I constantly take their $s through a variety of means, and yet every time its folded to them they keep on trying to steal and giving me more money.

Thank you for maintaining my anonymity in the aforementioned example...

[spoonitnow]

Arg I got no reply. Arg.

[bjsaust]

Sorry, missed your reply while I was doing a further reply of my own. You're referring to 3-bet bluffing? Its more of a ratio thing than an amount thing, but a lot of TAG-fish seem to have a really skewed 3-bet bluff ration. Minimum 2:1 bluff:value and often much higher. They also skew their 3-bets to much more OOP than IP. So a guy with 7% 3-bet might be 3-betting 15% from the blinds, but its doubtful he's 3-betting even 5% for value (they'll tend just to call with the lower end of their value range). So you have a guy with over 2/3 of his range being bluffs allowing you to play a big pot IP against him. Then since most TAG-fish cant play postflop, they either c-bet 100% OOP, or they check all their air, either way our decisions are pretty easy, because we positionpwn them.

Something like a 7% value 7% bluff range would be much harder to play against (other than playing your own range fairly straightfoward), so its not so much the % of hands they 3-bet, but what their range is made up of.

[bjsaust]

Btw, I havnt done any maths behind that, its just adjustments/thoughts I've come up with while playing these guys. Potentially you could do some maths and find I'm wrong, or come up with better options. I'm also only looking at 6-max. I dont know if ranges are as skewed in FR.