Ok, I'll be interested to hear how you develop this further.

Also, on EV, I think it's really best to count the blinds put in as dead money--not as SB losing 1 on a fold, but as EV 0. Similarly for BB on fold to SB raise.

I think that makes it also more in line with realities, since we're of course not playing a game where player A is always SB and B always BB. I'm also not at all sure whether SB or BB really has an advantage when we have SB OOP.

For now, I'd at least be most interested in what BB is supposed to do against someone raising 43% or more. Let's save analysis of best play for SB here for another thread--except as response to BB strategy once he's made his 43% raises.

The specific question at hand is BB's optimal strategy against SB who raises 43% or more--and with possible variations in how SB will respond to the re-raise. And not whether SB really should be raising 43% or not.

I think as the 'thread' is entitled 'blind defense' we have to consider the effect of the blinds put in....

It's critical to SB's edge in this position that he has only put half as much in to date as BB.
That means he can fold over half the time (as he does) and still have an advantage...

Anyway back to the maths.
So we have an SB who raises 43% and calls all pushes and a BB who just pushes or folds. The stacks are a mere 12BB. So this problem can be simplified to SB pushing 43% and the BB calling or folding.

So let's try SB getting it all in with 20%, 30%, 33% , 40%, 45% and 50% of hands.

20%
57/100 times SB gives up his blind (-28.5BB)
34.4/100 times BB folds to SB push (+51.6BB)
8.6/100 times BB/SB get it all in
SB is 43:57 dog (-13.7BB)
Overall SB is +9.4BB/100

30%
57/100 times SB gives up his blind (-28.5BB)
30.1/100 times BB folds to SB push (+45.2BB)
12.9/100 times BB/SB get it all in
SB is 6% dog (-9.3BB)
Overall SB is +7.4BB/100

33%
57/100 times SB gives up his blind (-28.5BB)
28.7/100 times BB folds to SB push (+43BB)
14.3/100 times BB/SB get it all in
SB is 47.7:52.3 dog (-7.9BB)
Overall SB is +6.6BB/100

40%
57/100 times SB gives up his blind (-28.5BB)
25.8/100 times BB folds to SB push (+38.7BB)
17.2/100 times BB/SB get it all in
SB is 1.3% dog (-2.7BB)
Overall SB is +7.5BB/100

45%
57/100 times SB gives up his blind (-28.5BB)
23.8 times BB folds to SB push (+35.7BB)
19.2 times BB/SB get it all in
SB is 1% favorite (+2.3BB)
Overall SB is +9.5 BB/100

50%
57/100 times SB gives up his blind (-28.6BB)
21.5 times BB folds to SB push (+32.2)
21.5 times BB/SB get it all in
SB is 3.3% favorite (+8.5BB)
Overall SB is +12.1BB/100

So you are correct. In this scenario (where he has alreasy commited 8.3% of his stack to the BB) the BB has no answer to a 43% blind steal.

I'm not sure what this tells us about cash game blind defense as its just too short to occur much, but I suppose the pushbotting aspects of this late in SNG's and MTT's are obvious.

Anyone have an argument for or against the value re-raises with full stacks on 99+, AJ+, KQ with optional bluff re-raises on 22/33 and SCs?

Whether or not to make the bluff re-raises depends on whether villain will err in the weak (make more of the bluffs) or tough (forget the bluffs) direction in calling the re-raise.

Methodologically, I will say that I like the direction excession has been going--namely taking the percentages from the [0,1] game and then examining them in terms of how various poker ranges hold up against one another. That might be at best rather difficult to carry out, though, if you further consider how things are likely to play out post flop with full stack depth.

My gut tells me that I'd rather 3 bet with 88/77/66 than KQo.
KQ is in a horrible place if 3 bet and called even if you hit a pair on the flop, whereas with a flat call it plays ok on a K or Q flop against a LAG's raising range.

Ceratinly I hardly ever push KQo when short whereas hands like ATs, 88, 66 get pushed by me over most any 25%+ stealer..

Well, I agree that I'm not liking it terribly in a 3-bet pot, but 66-88 really become bluffs unless you set. And the likelihood of that is about the same as KQs hitting flush or straight draw (which also in a called re-raised pot may be against a set or against some straight blockers). At the 50s, I've seen several LAG-ish types calling re-raises with KJ.

I definitely agree that if the re-raise is a short-stack shove, I prefer AT (or honestly even A2). But I think KQ is a better hand than AT if there's stack depth left. I mean both are in the same predicament if called. And with a pot of 48, you're really going to have to CB 36 to a check here the vast majority of the time. If I still get called, I'm checking the turn, though, even on a hit...

That's what I've been seeing. And even if they're nitty (in calling the re-raise), well, so they laydown the vast majority of the time and you know you're in serious trouble if you get called--but that applies also to 99 and moreso to 88.

I guess if they're only attacking your BB with top 18% or something, then KQ is a call rather than re-raise, but few play that nitty.

Ais.. how to respond on 4bets as he tries to adapt?

Is that a technical term?

I'm being serious...do you?