Raising A4s for value pf

[Maurader1]

Loosest passivest table I've seen at 1/2

This is my first time playing 9max as opposed to full-ring, didn't expect such a huge difference

Should I be raising for value in either spot?

Party Poker 1/2 Hold'em (9 max, 9 handed) converter (http://www.selachian.com/tools/bisonconverter/hhconverter.cgi)

Preflop: Hero is CO with A/images/graemlins/heart.gif, 4/images/graemlins/heart.gif.
UTG calls, <font color="#666666">1 fold</font>, MP1 calls, MP2 calls, MP3 calls, <font color="blue"> Hero calls </font> , Button calls, <font color="#CC3333">SB raises</font>, BB calls, UTG calls, MP1 calls, MP2 calls, MP3 calls, <font color="blue"> Hero calls </font> ...

Actually now that I think about it, I should only raise for value the first time around, since the original raiser might cap, and blow away the field. But then again, even if he caps, most hands will call since the pot is huge. Correct or wrong?

[Losfer]

Call the first time, and the second time. I'm not raising this in this spot. I'm playing this hand partly for the pot odds, and mostly for the implied odds from making a flush. You hurt that with a raise here.

[Maurader1]

How do I hurt my implied/pot odds by raising?

Are you thinking that if I raise, and hit a flush or a draw, it will get checked around to me, but if I just call pf, the SB will bet the flop, and I can trap the field for two?

[Losfer]

The more I think about it, the more I don't like my response.

What I was trying to say is that A4s is not a strong hand, and you likely don't have much equity yet. What you want to do is see a flop as cheaply as you can and go from there. If the flop has 2 or 3 of your suit you're in buisness, if not you don't have much of a hand and you'll be glad you didn't put two bets in PF.

[Maurader1]

Agreed I don't have much equity pf, but I wanted to raise to bloat the pot for the times I hit and keep as many in as possible, and if I don't hit, I am only *wasting* at most 2BB

[Mathieu]

The idea of bloating the pot to keep opponents in for when you hit a good flop makes sense. They will most likely be drawing to hands (1-2 pairs etc..) that can't beat yours (flush) if you hit it.

However you did mention that the table was very loose. So if these players are loose enough to stay in with marginal hands (or draw) even when the pot is too small, there is no reason why you should be "charged" 1 extra small bet.

For your raise to be good, it has to achieve something. Otherwise you are just reducing your EV for this hand. It depends on the players you are up against.

[Jaran]

[ QUOTE ]
Agreed I don't have much equity pf, but I wanted to raise to bloat the pot for the times I hit and keep as many in as possible, and if I don't hit, I am only *wasting* at most 2BB

[/ QUOTE ]

Ummmm, what's your BB/hr? Are you willing to *waste* an hours worth of work here? (I don't know what your rate is, so it could be more/less). I understand what you're going for, but I would reserve this for a hand with a little more strength personally.

-Jaran

[Losfer]

[ QUOTE ]
The idea of bloating the pot to keep opponents in for when you hit a good flop makes sense. They will most likely be drawing to hands (1-2 pairs etc..) that can't beat yours (flush) if you hit it.

However you did mention that the table was very loose. So if these players are loose enough to stay in with marginal hands (or draw) even when the pot is too small, there is no reason why you should be "charged" 1 extra small bet.

For your raise to be good, it has to achieve something. Otherwise you are just reducing your EV for this hand. It depends on the players you are up against.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think this is well put. I don't have the exact quote, but I believe there is a paragraph (or maybe just a sentence or two) in HEPFAP about this. If I remember correctly the book advocates raising from late position just for the reasons the OP gives, but that this would not be right if the players are the kind that play too many hands and go to far with them anyway.

[mockingbird]

I don't think Ax suited is a raising hand with 4 limpers and the button and blinds still to come.

This is a "speculative hand" like small pocket pairs and pays off in the long run if you can see the flop cheaply and have a multiway pot. Raising pf defeats both of these objectives, i.e., you dont see the flop cheaply and you could blow away some of the field.

[Mathieu]

That's right, I first read this in HPFAP. I think Mason also mentions it in one of the Poker essays. I did not give any reference, but since this this is a 2+2 forum, I guess it is implied that various concepts that are discussed may come from 2+2 books /images/graemlins/smile.gif.

[mockingbird]

I didnt intend to not give the appropriate credit to the source of my remarks. On 2+2 I thought it was pretty obvious to most or at least to many that I am basically paraphrasing SSHE.

[Maurader1]

Ah you are right, indeed I do remmeber reading that I don't need to bloat the pot if my opponents are loose and will call anyways...from the looks of the comments, I should be glad I didn't raise

[Maurader1]

BB/hr is in the red, no wonder I am asking questions like this /images/graemlins/frown.gif

[Isura]

[ QUOTE ]
How do I hurt my implied/pot odds by raising?

Are you thinking that if I raise, and hit a flush or a draw, it will get checked around to me, but if I just call pf, the SB will bet the flop, and I can trap the field for two?

[/ QUOTE ]

It hurts your implied odds because you are investing 1.5SB instead of .5 SB to see the flop. But, the size of the bets are still the same. In other words, the ratio of your preflop investment versus the size of the bets you'll collect on the flop and after has been reduced (since these bets are fixed in size). Offcourse if we have an equity edge preflop a raise is fine, but with A4 I think we don't have enough equity to be raising. Finally, raising does have some advantages that help to make up for cutting down our odds, such as encourage players to stay in the hand longer postflop due to the increased size of the pot.

[Maurader1]

I agree what it is speculative, but since so many have called already, I am not worried about blowing away the field.