An In-Depth Look at the Profitability of Pre-Flop Stealing in Tournaments
By: Jeff Gray

Blind and ante escalation forces action in the middle and latter rounds of No Limit Hold’em Multi-Table Tournaments. If winning is our main objective, we are not afforded the luxury of waiting around for premium hands.

There are many factors that contribute to pre-flop stealing success. Picking on the blinds of weak/tight players, rotating stealing spots, and thieving from non-telegraphed positions are all key factors that contribute to successful accumulation. My observations have led me to believe that most mid- to high-level players have some understanding of these concepts, but they fail to recognize the math behind pre-flop stealing, and lack the ability to pick out the tournament structures that encourage this action from a profitability perspective.

Tournament structures vary across the board from both an online and brick and mortar perspective. These “differences” include starting chips, blind levels, and time between levels, but the variable that is most influential in determining pre-flop theft profitability is the ante size.

Let’s take a look at the blind and ante structures at five different levels for PokerStars, Bodog, Ultimate Bet, Full Tilt, and the 2006 World Series of Poker.

At first glance the structures look fairly comparable, but the differences lie in the ante size. Let’s dig a little bit deeper and compare the starting pot sizes for full tables at the 1,000/2,000 level.

To derive starting pot size, we use a very simple equation: Starting-pot size = small blind + big blind + (ante x # of players)

This equation gives us the following starting-pot sizes for the aforementioned sites, at the 1,000/2,000 level.

So, now you might say, “OK, Jeff. I agree that the antes have a material effect on the starting-pot size, but what does this have to do with pre-flop stealing?”

The starting-pot size is the “reward” component in our risk/reward analysis. At a set blind level, as the starting-pot size, or reward, increases, the stealing success rate that we need to ensure profitability decreases. This concept is best illustrated through the use of a breakeven analysis. This analysis may sound intimidating and complex, but I think you will find it to be very simple to understand and use, once we walk through it.

Let’s use the 1,000/2,000/100 level of PokerStars as our initial example. We have already determined that the starting-pot size, or SPS, at a full table is 3,900. Since three times the big blind is considered by many to be a standard raise, we will use that figure for this example. What this means is that we are risking 6,000 to win the reward of 3,900. We need to ascertain the number of times that we need to be successful, in comparison to our failure rate, in order to break even.

Our equation looks like this: R = Risk SPS = Starting-pot size X = Success rate needed to break even R = SPS x X 6,000 = 3900 x X Solving for X, we take 6,000/3900, which equals 1.54.

What this tells us is that if we are trying to steal on PokerStars, risking 6,000 at the 1,000/2,000/100 level, we need to be successful 1.54 times for every 1 time that we fail, to break even. Now let’s take a look at what success rate, or X, we need to break even risking 6,000 at the same blind level on the other sites.

As noted, our theft success rate needs to be significantly higher to ensure profitability on PokerStars versus Full Tilt or a WSOP tourney. What this also tells us is that pre-flop stealing on sites or brick and mortar cardrooms that have high antes in comparison to the blinds is much more advantageous than structured events with lower antes. So we need to make sure that we are capitalizing on our pre-flop theft opportunities in these higher ante tournaments. From a game selection perspective, we should also be looking for tournaments hosted by sites, cardrooms, and casinos that have a combination of nitty players coupled with a high reward component. This juicy combination maximizes our profitability from a pre-flop aggression perspective.

Now you may ask, “Jeff, does this mean that we should refrain from stealing late in tournaments when the reward component is smaller at the associated blind levels?”

Even though the risk/reward scenario is not as appealing in tournaments with lower ante structures, this does not mean that we should stand by idly and succumb to the blinds. Waiting for premium hands is not an option in tournaments that have a fast structure. What I have found in most cases, in tournaments with a lower ante size, is that stealing at a high success ratio such as 1.5 is very realistic, but what I suggest for these type tourneys is that we lower our risk by raising to a number such as two-and-a-half times the big blind versus three. By lowering our risk, we effectively lower our success rate needed to become profitable. A lower risk will also allow us to lower our pot investment, become more active, and thus have a higher propensity of getting action on our premium hands.

Finally, I hope that I have done an adequate job in explaining the mathematical significance behind pre-flop stealing in sites and cardrooms with different structures. I would recommend that you closely track your pre-flop theft attempts and success rates in different tournaments. Once you garner a large enough sample size, you can then determine the risk amounts and frequencies that prove to be the most profitable for your game.

Lastly, I would also suggest investing time to scout out tournaments that provide a good risk/reward scenario along with entrants who have a propensity to play passively late in the tournament. Once you are able to identify these types of tournaments, and amass a large enough sample size, you will start to see a significant increase in your return on investment.

Jeff “jeffbeesdat” Gray is an online MTT player who has been a ranked tourney player on pocketfives.com. His best live finish in a large event is 10th place in the PL Hold’em event in Tunica during the WPO this year.