AHHH the power of the button...

[oreogod]

Then again, even if I believe that Im ahead getting 3-bet on the turn would still not be a fun experience. Even if I think Im ahead a semi-bluff 3-bet on the turn could definitly put some doubt in my mind...all the reason that OPs line is best.

[damaniac]

Well I discovered that absent any actual hands to discuss, I really don't have much to say. Raising of course makes a lot of hands easier to play, but it is so obvious it isn't even worth discussing.

Pocket pairs and iso raises, for example. One bad limper and I'm in the CO with 88, I raise for equity and such, but also because it will make postflop easier. It will usually keep the pot HU or 3-handed. My hand plays better that way equity-wise, but it also much easier when overcards fall. Against 4 opponents, with a flop of K92 or even Q75, you really don't feel great about your hand, but at the same time, you might be best, especially on the second flop. Against 2, it is much more likely that you are ahead and much easier to value bet.

Likewise, I iso 3-bet a total maniac with A6s, because I know postflop I can just call down with A high (or put in some raises if I pair up) and expect to show a profit. If others are in the pot, it changes my strategy, as I must now try to find ways to induce them to fold, if possible, which will cost me more bets, especially when they make hands themselves.

Another effect is that people will often check to the raiser on the flop. When raising in LP, this often gives you a freebie when you want it. Raising your QJs and JTs has value, and you will hit a lot of flops hard, but you will often also have flops with a gutshot and bdoorflush draw, and you'd rather peel for free than have to pay.

This also affects the pp's. When I have 88 and the flop is Q72, I usually feel pretty good about my hand, especially shorthanded. When I raise, I find I am usually able to control the betting. If I don't, I will be bet into on a lot flops. This is bad because they will often not have me beat. I certainly bet a lot of 3-handed unraised raggedy flops from the blinds with nothing. This makes for a difficult decision with a middle pair or a decent unimproved ace that will often still be good. I feel like when I raise, I am more able to control these plays and get flop folds, even when I miss. An A-rag flop comes, my 88's will often take it down right there against two overcards, who don't have an A and fear they are drawing dead when they have 6 outs. If I don't raise I feel they will bluff or at least call my open bet from late position if I make one, or even check-raise it, believing I have nothing. Now I have to make a difficult decision and often plan to put in 2.5 bb's to call down with a hand that will be worst a lot, but not enough to fail to show a profit. When I can put pressure on my opponent to make that tough decision to fold or call, though, he has to suffer and risk making a bad decision. Sklansky mentions this (albeit in reference to no limit I think) in one of his books, something about being in the worst position when put to make a difficult decision...ah I skewered it, I'll look for it.

The biggest problem with my reasoning here (I think, others can tear it apart anyway they like) is that a lot of this is based on feel. I don't know what opponents are folding when they fold. I don't know if they are truly more likely to bet into me with nothing if I raise or if I don't. I don't know that I get more flop folds after raises (although, given the pot size, it seems I wouldn't necessarily have to, at least when the blinds fold). I don't even know if I have addressed the issue you were thinking about. The whole idea of "being easier to play postflop" is kind of amorphous, since many of those ways are linked to equity and other reasons we are raising. However, based on the way I've been playing lately, raising more hands, I have found that I have been a lot more comfortable postflop, and hopefully turning a larger profit.

I think this an interesting idea, I'd really like others to add any examples they might have of this concept.

[crunchy1]

Disclaimers: Please excuse the length. Nothing in here is meant to be offensive - it's purely discussion. Bolded/italicized items are ones I feel are most important and points that I'd like to see addressed in a response.

[ QUOTE ]
Well I discovered that absent any actual hands to discuss

[/ QUOTE ]
This is not meant to be offensive - but I still have yet to see anyone provide a good example of how raising makes a hand easier to play. I also fail to see how you guys can continue to make the argument without any examples or statistical evidence to back up your claims.

[ QUOTE ]
Raising of course makes a lot of hands easier to play, but it is so obvious it isn't even worth discussing.

[/ QUOTE ]
Clearly - it's not so obvious.

[ QUOTE ]
Pocket pairs and iso raises, for example. One bad limper and I'm in the CO with 88, I raise for equity and such, but also because it will make postflop easier.

[/ QUOTE ]
You're not raising because it makes the hand easier to play - you're raising because the bad limper plays bad! You want to play against that player and your raise helps get the other better players to fold their marginal hands that they would also like to play against the bad limper. I suppose that to a certain extent this is a roundabout way of making the hand play easier (because you've limited the opponents to yourself and the bad players) but, it's not the only reason (and certainly not the foremost reason) that you are making the raise. If it were you'd only find rockish tables where you could sit on the left of the one bad player whom you'd then proceed to isolate with any two cards.

Furthermore, (on the assumption our "making the hand play easier" raise is a preflop raise) raising has no guarantee that it will make the hand easier postflop. First, you could get 3-bet PF. Now you're forced to call an extra bet PF with a marginal hand and you no longer have control of the hand. Second, there is no guarantee that your opponent isn't going to make things tough for you after the flop. I know that we skew the probabilities in our favor by making these plays against known bad opponents but, this is making the hand play easier through our knowledge of our opponents tendencies - not just because we raised.

[ QUOTE ]
It will usually keep the pot HU or 3-handed. My hand plays better that way equity-wise, but it also much easier when overcards fall.

[/ QUOTE ]
The first two sound like good reasons to raise. I don't understand what makes it easier when overcards fall. Cause when the flop is 3-broadway and 2-to-a-suit it's an easy fold when they bet? I don't get it?

[ QUOTE ]
Against 4 opponents, with a flop of K92 or even Q75, you really don't feel great about your hand, but at the same time, you might be best, especially on the second flop. Against 2, it is much more likely that you are ahead and much easier to value bet.

[/ QUOTE ]
First, it depends on the type of players your opponents are. Second, particularly at small stakes, if they flop something - you're going to at least get called down. Sometimes they will call down with an underpair to your 88. Sometimes you'll get checkraised on the flop or turn - and sometimes this will be a bluff. You can't really predict what actions your opponents will take on future streets. I fail to see how having raised PF would change this analysis. How is this easier??

[ QUOTE ]
Likewise, I iso 3-bet a total maniac with A6s, because I know postflop I can just call down with A high (or put in some raises if I pair up) and expect to show a profit.

[/ QUOTE ]
LAG!!!!!!!!! [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img] (mid-post humor to lighten things up)

[ QUOTE ]
If others are in the pot, it changes my strategy, as I must now try to find ways to induce them to fold, if possible, which will cost me more bets, especially when they make hands themselves.

[/ QUOTE ]
IMO, this pretty much disolves your argument for raising to make things easier. If this ends up being the case (and at SS even though you raise many pots still end up multiway) your raise has simply cost you an extra small bet PF and now you are faced with a marginal hand in a multiway pot.

[ QUOTE ]
Another effect is that people will often check to the raiser on the flop. When raising in LP, this often gives you a freebie when you want it. Raising your QJs and JTs has value, and you will hit a lot of flops hard, but you will often also have flops with a gutshot and bdoorflush draw, and you'd rather peel for free than have to pay.

[/ QUOTE ]
This is a great reason to raise in LP with pairs and broadway-suited connectors. The full list of reasons are: (A) It's a value raise based on your position and pot equity with a hand that plays well multiway, (B) It ties players to a big pot when you flop a monster hand and (C) It will many times buy you 4 (and sometimes 5) cards for 2 SBs. It has nothing to do with making the hand play easier.

[ QUOTE ]
This also affects the pp's. When I have 88 and the flop is Q72, I usually feel pretty good about my hand, especially shorthanded.

[/ QUOTE ]
So do I - regardless of whether or not I raised.

[ QUOTE ]
When I raise, I find I am usually able to control the betting. If I don't, I will be bet into on a lot flops. This is bad because they will often not have me beat. I certainly bet a lot of 3-handed unraised raggedy flops from the blinds with nothing. This makes for a difficult decision with a middle pair or a decent unimproved ace that will often still be good.

[/ QUOTE ]
It's not difficult at all. I think that you're vastly overestimating the number of better hands that you're folding out by making these bets.

[ QUOTE ]
I feel like when I raise, I am more able to control these plays and get flop folds, even when I miss.

[/ QUOTE ]
This is a facade. As I mentioned earlier - you cannot control your opponents actions - it's an illusion. I really think that you're overvaluing the power of your raises. I'm curious how long/how many hands you've played that has made you feel this way. I've raised marginal hands PF, made standard flop/turn plays only to get bet into or check-raised at some point. It's happened enough that I know raising isn't neccessarily going to makes my later street decisions easier.

[ QUOTE ]
An A-rag flop comes, my 88's will often take it down right there against two overcards, who don't have an A and fear they are drawing dead when they have 6 outs. If I don't raise I feel they will bluff or at least call my open bet from late position if I make one, or even check-raise it, believing I have nothing.

[/ QUOTE ]
In my experience I haven't seen how a PF raise prevents this from happening.

[ QUOTE ]
Now I have to make a difficult decision and often plan to put in 2.5 bb's to call down with a hand that will be worst a lot, but not enough to fail to show a profit. When I can put pressure on my opponent to make that tough decision to fold or call, though, he has to suffer and risk making a bad decision.

[/ QUOTE ]
Raising PF, having it checked to you on the flop and then betting and facing your opponents with one SB is not really putting very much pressure on them IMO.

[ QUOTE ]
The biggest problem with my reasoning here (I think, others can tear it apart anyway they like) is that a lot of this is based on feel.

[/ QUOTE ]
I don't have a problem with feel plays. A "feel" play online is really a statistically probable play based on empirical data of your opponent (in live play it may relate to some physical tell). If you're "looking into your opponent's soul" through the monitor and telephone lines and determining that he's got nothing and you're going to raise - you should start preparing for a downswing. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't know what opponents are folding when they fold. I don't know if they are truly more likely to bet into me with nothing if I raise or if I don't. I don't know that I get more flop folds after raises (although, given the pot size, it seems I wouldn't necessarily have to, at least when the blinds fold). I don't even know if I have addressed the issue you were thinking about. The whole idea of "being easier to play postflop" is kind of amorphous, since many of those ways are linked to equity and other reasons we are raising.

[/ QUOTE ]
It seems to me that your basing your information on a lack of experience. It seems that you've had a good run so far and your aggression has been over-respected to the point where you feel that when you raise a marginal hand there's a high probability that everyone will just end up folding after the flop.

I'll stop this madness with a little quote:
"We reduce the principal reasons for raising to seven:
1. To get more money in the pot when you have the best hand
2. To drive out opponents when they have the best hand
3. To bluff or semi-bluff
4. To get a free card
5. To gain information
6. To drive out worse hands when your own hand may be second best.
7. To drive out better hands when a come hand bets."
- from Theory of Poker - David Sklansky

Now - I don't see raising to make the hand play easier anywhere on that list.

[damaniac]

No one else finds this interesting apparently, but I found a couple of posts by others that mention this and talk about it a little. Doesn't prove anything, but it is at least interesting.

No explanation on this one

One way it helps

Similar reason

[crunchy1]

[ QUOTE ]
No one else finds this interesting apparently, but I found a couple of posts by others that mention this and talk about it a little. Doesn't prove anything, but it is at least interesting.

[/ QUOTE ]

I find it very interesting - for a couple reasons...

(1) I've seen Errant Night STRONGLY advocate not raising to make the hand play easier in other posts. One of which got me to think about this topic specifically and forced me to form some opinions. lol... BUSTED!!

(2) lol... ME... BUSTED!! Let's just say that I've learned a lot in 2 months. Furthermore, Q-Tip's situation there is completely different that what we're talking about here. That was a blind-stealing discussion which really centered around raising or folding 22 on the button when it's folded to you. There's no way that calling is the correct play in limit hold'em so it's really a raise or fold situation based on his opponents tendencies in the blinds.

(3)
[ QUOTE ]
Raising those hands preflop also makes the hand easier to play postflop. Let's say you raise KQo and the small blind calls you. The flop is A83, and the SB bets into you. That's an easy fold, because he is showing a lot of strength by betting into a preflop raiser -- you can guarantee he has an ace. If you just limped, he could be betting middle or bottom pair.

[/ QUOTE ] -private joker

This is horrible advice. He could be betting any number of hands there and furthermore that exact flop (with no flush/straight draws) is one of maybe 4 flops that will come where you can make this assumption. 99% of the time the flop will have some kind of draw that SB could be betting and that doesn't tell you anything.

[MaxPower]

Two things on this thread.

Crunchy1 is right.

I often raise on the turn in situtations like this. I can't explain exactly why, but I know that it is a good play.

[damaniac]

I really feel like we're having communication problems and that we agree more than we disagree.

This whole thing started out with my saying that, hypothetically, IF raising a given hand (not this one) made it easier to play postflop, that should be taken into consideration when deciding whether to raise or not. You gave me the impression (heck you came right out and said), that it should not be taken into account because we need to learn how to play marginal situations well. I felt that, sure, of course we do, but if we can make easy decisions or harder decisions I'd rather have to make an easy one and so would everyone else, and IF raising a given hand were to have that effect, that would be ONE factor to consider when deciding how to play it.

Of course many hands will be MORE difficult to play by raising, especially against tricky opponents who will check-raise many flops, sometimes with draws, sometimes with made hands, sometimes with nothing. I'm merely arguing (and I am not sure whether or not you disagree) that there will be some times where raising makes postflop play easier, and that would be an ADDITIONAL BENEFIT OF RAISING for equity or what have you, or could swing a decision where raising or calling are about the same to a raise. Do you think that this is never the case? Cuz that's really all I've ever been advocating here.

[crunchy1]

Actually Wepeel started it with his post that said:
[ QUOTE ]
If you are gonna play this, you should raise pre-flop, especially on the button. Raising pre-flop makes marginal situations so much easier to play.

[/ QUOTE ]
This is not goot thinking. Raising 3 limpers on the button with a weak, offsuit Ace is NOT going to make the hand easier to play.

My reply was:
[ QUOTE ]
(1) Making the hand easier to play is not a good reason to raise. Play poker - make tough decisions. Don't make value-less raises in multiway pots essentially because it will make it easier to fold later on.

[/ QUOTE ]
I stand by that 100%. In reference to this particular hand he said:

Then you became involved (thankfully - cause it's turned into a good discussion):
[ QUOTE ]
This whole thing started out with my saying that, hypothetically, IF raising a given hand (not this one) made it easier to play postflop, that should be taken into consideration when deciding whether to raise or not. You gave me the impression (heck you came right out and said), that it should not be taken into account because we need to learn how to play marginal situations well.

[/ QUOTE ]
Learning to play marginal situations well is part of the argument. But, the other, larger part, is that the frequency with which our raise actually makes the hand easier to play is very, very low. (Repeat in bold for emphasis [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img])

The frequency with which our raise actually makes the hand easier to play is very, very low.

[ QUOTE ]
I'm merely arguing (and I am not sure whether or not you disagree) that there will be some times where raising makes postflop play easier

[/ QUOTE ]
I do agree that sometimes a raise will make the hand easier to play. What I don't agree with is that we can predict with any reasonable amount of accuracy when our raise will have this effect. Which is why I say that it shouldn't be taken into account. Yes, it is a nice side-effect - I don't feel that it should be a consideration.

I hope this makes sense. I'm curious if you understand my position now (if I've better clarified it) and whether or not you agree or disagree.

[damaniac]

Yeah, the only thing I am unsure of is the frequency. I do think that frequency with which it will swing a decision is indeed low. It may well make a lot of hands easier to play postflop, but we'd be raising those anyway. In any event, those close decisions where raising might help us postflop are just that--close decisions--so I think I'll devote more of my time discussing other areas of my game, such as, oh I dunno, those marginal postflop situations. [img]/images/graemlins/smirk.gif[/img]

[Wepeel]

Well finally this discussion has turned into something reasonable as I agree that raising shouldn't solely be to make postflop play easier, but should in fact be a side effect, but I do believe it should be taken into consideration sometimes.

In this particular situation the more I read, the more I realize that raising with A9o on the button after 3 limpers is not a good decision. I personally said it before and I will say it again, I would fold this preflop.

However, I do have an interesting question that goes along with playing more marginal hands preflop. Say you are in the same position here with 3 limpers before you, what's your play with KJo? I'm a culprit of raising this as I think it's for value, however, I'm leaning towards this being like the A9o hand where you either call or fold. What's your guys' opinions?