Raising first in 100% or NOT

[naphand]

I'd love to hear more about the concept of raising when first in on short-handed tables.

This seems to be considered nearly a *crime against humanity* (to paraphrase Mr. Sklansky) by the more experienced players. The reasons behind this have been explained and I can understand them as:

(1) NEVER let the blinds in cheap to catch their cards for nothing - make them pay to play

(2) If your cards are worth playing - they are worth playing for a raise.

(3) Raise with good cards to get heads-up or against the blinds to increase your chances of taking the pot.

BUT even though I can see the logic in this, the $1/$2 6-max tables at Party are chock-full of players who will not fold the blinds to a raise EVER, and usually (80% of the time) flops will go unraised with 4-5 players seeing the flop. Under these conditions, you are unlikely to get heads up, and you are facing a lot of potential drawing hands or AT LEAST being in a position not to bet your overcards should you miss.

ALSO - with so many players limping it does mean you can limp in with a lot of cards you could not play with only 2-3 seeing the flop: suited connectors, lower pairs etc.

Can someone perhaps explain why, under these game conditions, limping in with these marginal hands is NOT a good play. Sure - if YOU were playing you would raise the limpers to punish them - but I am talking here about tables that are much more passive (where there are no players who raise first in all the time, or even most of the time).

Anyone?

[stripsqueez]

6 handed is not very short handed and the more players the more limping in becomes OK - perhaps it is saying the same thing to observe that the drawing hands still have enough value at 6 handed to be worth playing - get down to 4 handed and thats not so

limping in UTG 6 handed with garbage is a guess - it might go raise and 3 bet by the next 2 players and now you are in terrible shape

if i'm going to play UTG 6 handed in the sort of school you describe its likely that i am going to have the best hand - trite then to observe that i want everyone else to pay extra to play with me

stripsqueez - chickenhawk

[sweetzer]

There is a "two sides" irony to many situations in these low limit, no fold'em games. If you raise preflop, yes, many will still call and top pair isn't much of a hand. But if you can raise only one or two players out, then you have a greater chance of winning with your top pair hand. Hands like AQ or AJ don't play well in multi-handed pots, but if they do hold up they can win money from players calling with weaker aces. With suited connectors you may want to play for as cheaply as possible to see the flop. Mike Caro has advocated this. On the other hand, if it's two bets preflop, and your suited connectors hit only part of the flop, the pot odds are there to take another card off. However this pertains to everyone else also. One good thing about raising preflop in low limit games is that many players will then "check to the raiser". Suited connectors and small pairs do play well in these games, even non-suited connectors. I think the key is to mentally prepare yourself for being drawn out frequently, prepare for greater bankroll variations, and prepare to grind it out. Games like this occur even at mid limits, and they can be very frustrating, but at the same time they can be very lucrative. Personnally, I still prefer to come in with a raise, and hope to get out that 10-7 that could come back to beat me.

[Ikke]

In poker, when someone states you should do something 100% of the times, he is wrong 99,9% of the times.

There are almost always circumstances where a certain default play switches to other options, or the same action for different reasons. There lies the key; the reasons why determines your course of action, and since the arguments for a certain action change on changing situations, a "100%-theory" is most of the times an oversimplification. Still, there are ofcourse enough situations where one argument is so strong for a certain action, that there has to be a very extreme situation to favour opposite arguments.

In all limits limping in preflop can be correct. The 1/2 Party game can be too loose. Same for the 100/200; many players will defend the BB defend virtually always when you open-raise from the SB. So, combined with other arguments, a
case can be made for open limping.

Regards

[naphand]

Yes - nicely put. I think on the day when I lost 120 BB I was probably raising legitimate hands ok but also limping with marginal hands and getting raised. I can remember shouting at the screen "f*** every time I limp in I am getting raised". I got seriously punished... /images/graemlins/mad.gif

Now I am trying to be much more aware of the game conditions and if there is any chance I am getting raised PF, or there are not enough players in, these marginal hands are getting mucked without a second thought. In the right game though, I will play them. What makes them such strong plays is that when you hit the flop with a low set or a straight/4-straight the other players will pretty much auto-call to the River with their overcards and if a high does fall, you will get your straight/set capped.

5-handed I have no experience, but I guess the odds pretty much evaporate with each person less seeing the flop.

Thanks for your reply.

[naphand]

OK thanks for that. I feel a bit more comfortable about what I am doing now - I was afraid that somewhere along the line I had taken a wrong turn and was on a road to nowhere.

I have no problem raising or re-raising loose/weak or lunatic players in these games so I guess as I get more experience I will feel more comfortable in the crazier games, and start attacking sooner.

Your last comment about the T7o made me laugh. Although I totally agree with you this is precisely what is NOT happening in the games I am seeing. Yesterday I raised PF UTG with QQ and was called by the 2 players to my left (who never folded to a raise PF), the rest folded (including the blinds!! but then I had just won a couple of hands with PF raises and showing down AK paired). The flop was all undercards but one of the players had T7o and caught an inside straight draw and called the flop bet. All 3 of us went to showdown with a paired board and I came 2nd when he hit his 4 outer on the Turn (but never once raised my bets).

I see this all the time - however, in many cases these players seem to put you on the nuts because of your PF raise and flop bet, so I guess I am losing the least amount playing this way, as they are frequently too weak to raise their made hands against you.

It seems to me that the logic I am up against is: if I have a made hand, but non-nut, they are terrified of the nuts. If I raise PF with AA/KK and they hit a mid-low pair or have a low pair wired, they put me on AK/AQ. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

It's dumb...but it's saving me a lot bets!