Howard Lederer Article

[DOTTT]

Hi everyone, I found this article on Howard's site to be very interesting.
Howard Lederer Article (http://www.howardlederer.com/article5.html)

My question is do you think the alternative Howard gives to playing the hand is correct? Suppose Layne does make the raise to 44,000, do you think he would be able to get away from the hand if X-22 moves in on him? It just seems to me the Layne was determined to play this hand hard, and that there was no way he was going to get away from it. And what's with the limp in lp. Thoughts?

[cferejohn]

I think this article brings up something I've been thinking about and experimenting with recently - raising the minimum when the money is shallow. You can get into these situations where the bet *might* be a bluff, but it might also represent a real hand. Often, in mid-to-late tournaments, a pot sized raise of a reasonable flop bet (this one was a little larger than 'reasonable') will put you all-in. At the same time, you are often in a situation where only better hands will call.

I think a minimum raise as a 'tester' with a decent hand makes sense here, provided you also do this when you have a huge hand. Someone bluffing with nothing will probably lay down, and depending on the chip/money situation, someone may even lay down a non-nut flush/straight draw.

Note that this applies to situations that are a) heads up and b) in shallow money (stacks of ~20x the BB).

[DOTTT]

Here's my problem with the mini raise, if I get played back at I don't think I'll be able to lay down the hand. It just seems to me that if your opponent has hit a monster you're going to have to pay him off.

I think it's good to use the mini raise when 1. you are certain you have your opponent beat and are trying to trap. 2. Have a marginal hand that you think is the best but are not sure off. In that case you would love if you can take the pot right there, or if you could check it down.In Layne’s case it would be proper if he knew X-22 was holding something like AJ or AT.

If we were to break the hand into two scenarios, one where Layne makes the raise and X-22 calls, and one where X-22 plays back at him it seems to me that Layne would end up paying him off in both situations.

Scenario #1: X-22 bets 22000 Layne makes a raise 44000, X-22 calls. Now if we assume that X-22 checks the turn, Layne should still make a bet on the turn (do we agree here? why check and give him a free card if he's on a flush/str8 draw?), and it would have to be a substantial bet because there's over 88,000 in the pot.

Scenario #2: Layne makes the raise, X-22 moves in on him I really don't feel Layne is going to give him credit for a set or two pair with that kind of flop, and especially since he over bet the pot.

It seems to me that the only way Layne could avoid loosing a chunk of his stack is if he calls X-22 flop bet, and then bets on the turn, X-22 calls and then makes a big bet on the river. Still a tough lay down but certainly easier to make after the turn call and big bet on the river.