Min-Raises... What Do They Mean? Now We'll Find Out!

[KramerTM]

I've personally found that min-raises can often be the most confusing bets made in an SnG. Is Villain trying to represent strength as cheaply as possible? Or is he milking me for more chips because he has a monster and wants to give me odds to see another card?

Well, I've had enough of this uncertainty. Starting today (well, I suppose I started yesterday), I plan to keep track of every min-raise I see made in an SnG. If the hand gets shown down, I will note what the player min-raised with (I suppose I will categorize the hands into various groups such as PP below highest card on board, inside straight draw, top set, nut flush draw, high flush draw, etc.)

Not sure how long it will take to get a remotely significant sample (I figure 500 might give us a good idea of what a min-raise means on average, but I could be way off here). After playing 4 tables at once last night, I only noted one min-raise, but I could have payed more attention I suppose.

Currently, I play anywhere from the 22s to the 55s, so I guess I'll keep the results segmented by buy-in level. We can always combine them later to get a general SnG distribution.

I would like some advice on how to better conduct this experiment. If anyone sees potential pitfalls or vehemently believes this is a waste of my not-so-valuable time, please speak up. For instance, I feel already that the data may be skewed because the sample will only contain hands that were shown down.

Further, if anyone is interested in helping out (and thus decreasing the time it will take to get results exponentially), let me know. You can PM me your results on a weekly basis and I can compile them.

Sorry to say that I do not play as much as I used to (I used to play around 20-25 hours a week, but have decreased to about 10-12 because of a full-time job and other intangibles), so there is no telling how long this might take. If somewhere in the middle, I project it will take longer than a few months to conduct, I will most likely give up. [img]/images/graemlins/mad.gif[/img]

Wish me luck. If some critical results come out of this, it will be the least I could do to thank everyone at this board for their guidance along my SnG quest.

[tshort]

Seems like a good idea, but... the raise has tons of other variables other than just being a min-raise. You have to take into account buy-in, blinds, position, others in pot, etc. I think it is much more complicated then collecting data on 500 random min-raises. I think you would need thousands of min-raises and then categorize them. Then there is a problem of a min-raise not being shown down. That situation could happen under various situations.

I think there are too many variables and complications to make it worth the time.

[xLukex]

[ QUOTE ]
Seems like a good idea, but... the raise has tons of other variables other than just being a min-raise. You have to take into account buy-in, blinds, position, others in pot, etc. I think it is much more complicated then collecting data on 500 random min-raises. I think you would need thousands of min-raises and then categorize them. Then there is a problem of a min-raise not being shown down. That situation could happen under various situations.

I think there are too many variables and complications to make it worth the time.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you have a read and the HH I don't see why you couldn't make some small assumption after an enormous sample size.

[tshort]

I agree, but... The problem of collecting a sample size that correctly takes into account the dozens of variables would take way too long. Some of those variables factor in player reads. It is hard to get accurate player reads playing 4+ tables.

[BadMongo]

[ QUOTE ]
I think there are too many variables and complications to make it worth the time.

[/ QUOTE ]

[durron597]

Minraises definitely mean different things for different people in different situations.

[Apathy]

This makes no sense unless you take the ENTIRE context of each individual hand into account.

The reason someone might decide to min raise utg and min raise on the button on the bubble, with a certain stack size are totally different.

Learning those sort of things just comes with experience, but writing down everything you see cant hurt.

[rvg72]

Manually checking and recording? Yuck! You would be better off finding someone who can program to write a simple little program for you that will automatically go through your hand histories and collect and record this. Poker Tracker might actually be able to do this using a filter.

I think you will find that when it is a poor player the min raise means nothing and when it is a good player (tight and aggressive) it will often mean a monster. If you are going to do this manually you may want to make a note of the player who made the move.

rvg

[capone0]

I think other players have reiterated it, A min raise late in a tournament when blinds are big is a lot different than a min raise early in the tournament when blinds are relatively small. You might want to add blind levels when doing this stat. I've seen so many idiots min raise with AA in early levels, and get cracked.

(Aside, no content) I remember my friend calling a min raise in EP in a 200+buyin MTT on party with 55, flop coming 25x. Idiot overbetting the flop with AA, and when my friend comes over the top him going allin only to catch running 34 and my friend wondering why the chips aren't coming to him.

It's funny these people min raise aces, get cracked and then can never fold'em. Ah, will they ever learn.

[JC_Saves]

I just read an article Chris Ferguson wrote where he advocates never limping into a pot. If you are up front and have a good hand then 2BB is the bet to make because you are representing strength by raising up front so people will assume that your have a good hand.

As you get to late position you have to raise more because the hands you will play will drop in strength and therefore you have to bet more to deter the blinds from playing their mediocre holdings.