General stud theory question: Being raised in the first betting round
 

You have a mid-pair and players to act after you have some higher up cards but there's nothing really scary out there. I usually will limp in this spot but what happens when someone afterwards completes? Do I throw away the hand for half a small bet or do I call the complete to see what 4th street brings?

Re: General stud theory question: Being raised in the first betting ro
 

This really depends on alot of things. How many people are in the pot, overcard kicker, live cards, the raisers likely holdings, etc... If the situation is favorable make the call, if not then you may need to consider folding.


You can't really be that general in this game.

Re: General stud theory question: Being raised in the first betting round
 

It also depends on what you think he has (how likely he has the big pair), how the hand will be played out, the relative size of the full bet to the bring in, and the relative size of that to the ante.

Big ante game against passive players where you don't really believe he's got it, call. Small ante game against a tight aggressive player that is likely to have it, find a better spot.

Re: General stud theory question: Being raised in the first betting ro
 

This type of question could be better answered if you posted some hand examples. There are many more variables to this situation that it can not really be answered well in a straight forward general rule without the whole story.

Re: General stud theory question: Being raised in the first betting round
 

heads up fold w/o overcard or strflush kicker, multiway call and try to make a big hand.

Re: General stud theory question: Being raised in the first betting ro
 

I have never folded for half a small bet after limping in for the other half.

Re: General stud theory question: Being raised in the first betting ro
 

im with andy on this one. if you limped and and it is only a completion I can't see folding. Of course this assumes you are limping with a reasonable hand that is live and can improve to win. If not, then you need to reconsider the hands you are playing

Re: General stud theory question: Being raised in the first betting ro
 

Sometimes the limp is for only 1/3 of a small bet,& then you can get away from the completion a lot easier.

Re: General stud theory question: Being raised in the first betting ro
 

Since I don't play middle pairs, I can't answer your question from personal experience.

In general a raise on 3rd, means you should call on 3rd/4th/ and probably 5th/6th/7th as well. Why get sucked into a big pot with trap hand?

Middle pairs == Weak two pair which is strictly a sucker hand in any game where people like to play big pairs.

Re: General stud theory question: Being raised in the first betting ro
 

Playing no middle pairs has got to be -EV, thats pretty tight I think.

And calling a half bet on 3rd street won't tie you on if you don't improve by 5th most of the time. If you don't catch 2 pair or better or a good draw by fifth get out of the hand.

Re: General stud theory question: Being raised in the first betting ro
 

Are there games where people don't like to play big pairs?

Re: General stud theory question: Being raised in the first betting round
 

As with most things in poker it depends, however If I limp into a pot I would generally not throw my hand away to a completion bet although I might be taking the worst of it going into 4th street. To make this a profitable move then you must only limp in with middle pairs where the chances of improvement are the greatest and secondly where the chances of getting the improved hand paid off are maximised.

Hence I would never come in with a middle pair if one of my pair cards were dead, I am less inclinded to play split pairs than concealed pairs. In the case of split pairs I would be more will be inclined to limp if I have a relatively strong hole card i.e. one that is higher than most of the remaining players door cards. I tend to disregard secondary outs such as suited and connected kickers because generally you will need to get to 5th street before you have a genuine draw such as a four flush.

Secondly I am ready to give up the hand either on 4th or 5th street if I have not improved, an unimproved middle pair is not going to win a raised pot at the end so why carry on the more expensive rounds ?

Providing you can play them well they can be profitable hands but if you lack discipline they are potentially a huge leak and are best folded.

regards

Ross

I hope you.................................
 

understand that your question lacks all the information needed to give you a proper answer......

What are the game limits?
What are the antes?
What is the bring in?
What is your kicker inrelation to your pair?
Do you have other outs?
How many players do you anticipate calling the raise?

See where I am going..

Happy Holidays?

CJ

Re: General stud theory question: Being raised in the first betting round
 

Hi,

[ QUOTE ]
To make this a profitable move then you must only limp in with middle pairs where the chances of improvement are the greatest and secondly where the chances of getting the improved hand paid off are maximised.


[/ QUOTE ]

So you only are going to raise with big pairs? Are you saying you will never re-raise with middle pairs? How long do you think decent, observant opponents will pick up on this at the poker table???

[ QUOTE ]
Hence I would never come in with a middle pair if one of my pair cards were dead

[/ QUOTE ]

So you wouldn't play a pair of sevens with an Ace or King kicker with a seven out? Do you play in a no ante game or a game with a tiny ante? Cause in a bigger game if you play as you suggest you are going to go broke, it is really that simple.

[ QUOTE ]
I am less inclinded to play split pairs than concealed pairs.

[/ QUOTE ]

Explain this one please

[ QUOTE ]
tend to disregard secondary outs such as suited and connected kickers

[/ QUOTE ]

Really explain this one please

[ QUOTE ]
Secondly I am ready to give up the hand either on 4th or 5th street if I have not improved

[/ QUOTE ]

Alot of times this might be true, but as I responded to the original poster, there is NOT NEARLY enough information on his part, or your part, to be making these rash questions and generalazations.

If you, even 'generally', play as you suggest, you will go broke in any game that has a sizeable ante.. It really is that simple, and it really isn't even close. Now, if you were playing in a $1-3 or $1-5 game with no ante... I would probably agree with you 100%. But that is just my point, again I asked the original poster, what games and or limits/structures are we talking about? You really can't ask a 'General Stud Theory' Question like this..

Happy Holidays,

CJ

Re: General stud theory question: Being raised in the first betting round
 

Yes the answer is generalised but it does refer to a scenario were there are a number of overcards out which have yet to act. There are circumstances where I would open raise with a middle pair and even reraise although this entirely player dependent, but not into 3 live overcards.

The point I was making about limping is in that scenario was that if you are raised then there is a strong possibility that you are up against an overpair. In that case you need to maximise the opportunities to improve the best case scenario and a large part of the hands EV comes from hitting a set. If one of your cards is dead the chances of hitting the set have been reduced by 50% and therefore the had has become a great deal less attractive. I take your point about the Ace kicker provided it was completely live an Ace kicker makes any pair playable although I would'nt play a completely dead small or middle pair with an Ace.

The point about concealed pairs v split pair accepting that you need to improve to win in this scenario nothing kills action quicker than a paired door card consider (99)69 v (96)99 which one do you reraise to deny them a free draw at a straight ? Therefore a concealed pair is more likely to get paid off therefore I value them more highly then split pairs particulary small or middle pairs which probably need to improve to win.

The point about the secondary outs is that they do not make the hand playable because you need to get 2 cards to have a powerful draw by 5th street you miss on 4th and they are pretty much dead. I would trade them for an Ace kicker.

I would suggest the fastest way to go broke is call heavy action from an number of overcards with a middle pair into the latter betting rounds. If it ain't improved by 5th and there is action get out of the way you are losing.

Hope that clarifies my position.

Ross

Re: General stud theory question: Being raised in the first betting round
 

Hi,

[ QUOTE ]
The point I was making about limping is in that scenario was that if you are raised then there is a strong possibility that you are up against an overpair

[/ QUOTE ]

True.. but in Stud, as the antes get higher and higher.. it becomes more important to 'chase' anyways.. which means it becomes more important to raise and re-raise with your 'other' pairs.. Also, those secondary outs you don't value, really DO become important..

Hence, my original posts ask about which games, ante size etc...

[ QUOTE ]
The point about concealed pairs v split pair accepting that you need to improve to win in this scenario nothing kills action quicker than a paired door

[/ QUOTE ]

True.. which is WHY you use this knowledge to your adventage. ( a.k.a mixing thigs up ) There are plently of times you pair your doorcard and WANT people to fold. I am not suggesting that split pairs are better, but I am not suggesting they are any WORSE than conceled pairs. You just have to know how to play them differently. I wont throw away a slpit pair of eight just because they are split.. I will use several other factors to make my determaination.

[ QUOTE ]
The point about the secondary outs is that they do not make the hand playable because you need to get 2 cards to have a powerful draw by 5th street you miss on 4th and they are pretty much dead. I would trade them for an Ace kicker

[/ QUOTE ]

To generalize myself, I would probably trade for an Ace kicker myself, but there are several instances those secondary outs make a HUGE difference, ESPECIALLY in loose games.

[ QUOTE ]
would suggest the fastest way to go broke is call heavy action from an number of overcards with a middle pair into the latter betting rounds

[/ QUOTE ]

I thought this post started with discussing third street?

CJ

Re: General stud theory question: Being raised in the first betting ro
 

[ QUOTE ]
Playing no middle pairs has got to be -EV, thats pretty tight I think.

And calling a half bet on 3rd street won't tie you on if you don't improve by 5th most of the time. If you don't catch 2 pair or better or a good draw by fifth get out of the hand.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's called being selective. Middle pairs are basicly ante stealing fuel in my opinion. It's not even worth the limp, if there are overcards behind you.

Often you won't improve by 5th street, which will cost you 2 BB each time. And Sometimes when you improve you lose. 2Pair vs an Over pair on 5th isn't a prohibative favorite. Unless you catch trips, you will never be able to play with confidence.

The net result is that middlepairs are very overated, and that 7CSFAP dramatically over encourages playing them.

Re: General stud theory question: Being raised in the first betting ro
 

Given a loose structure, if I have a hidden small pair and a threatening door card, I will raise (or re-raise if I am in late position), provided several conditions are met: Both the pair and the kicker are completely live, and I am against opponents who play draws (especially low 3-straights) too loosely. This makes passive opponents fold small or middle pairs which are beating you at the moment, and charges draws (against which you are currently a favorite).

If your opponents catch bad, your big door card gives you enough leverage to get folds on the expensive streets, and if you thin the field, you stand a good chance in any case. It's not uncommon for a hand like this to get to 6th unimproved, but your opponents have to improve to take the initiative at that point, and if you are beaten in-sight on 5th, folding out facing aggression isn't too expensve.

With an Ace in the door, for example, you can catch suited cards or another Ace to make a hand that will make folds for you, or you can catch trips and have the strength of your hand concealed, both of which are good outcomes.

You have to be wary of getting married to a hand like this, but it is a good hand against the right opponents.