Why it is not mandatory to call a raise after completing.

This post is inspired by a related hand where I'm still not convinced of the correct play.

I think the rule of thumb that you should always call a single raise preflop applies to situations in which you have already invested a full small bet. A +EV situation is defined as one where you will, on average, expect to earn more postflop than your original investment (I'm pretty sure this is the definition provided in SSHE, although someone should check this). Calling for half a bet is different than calling for a full bet, even though the current pot odds are the same. This is because the bet sizes postflop become relatively smaller to your investment.

There was a recent post in the Small Stakes forum involving 55 on the button. the Hero was faced with 3 bets cold preflop after 3 cold callers, basically giving the poster 5:1 immediate odds on his call. Typically, this is where most players would cut off calling for set value. The odds for flopping a set are about 7.5:1, meaning that the OP would have to make up an additional 2.5 small bets postflop to make up for this. This would be an easy call if it were for a single bet, as 1.25BB is not that hard to make up postflop against 4 loose players. But the situation was for THREE bets. This means the OP would have to make up 3.75BB postflop to make up for this. Although the immediate odds are the same, the implied odds are significantly different.

My point is that the implied odds for calling one small bet and then an additional small bet are identical; however, to call one small bet and pay twice that when it comes back to you is different. If calling for half a small bet in the SB is very marginal, then folding to a raise is mandatory.

Calling a raise after completing in the SB is mathematically equivalent to calling a raise and a reraise after limping.

Comments?

You're probably right but I would put it like this:

Calling a raise after completing in the SB is mathematically equivalent to calling a raise and a reraise after limping in terms of implied odds.

Let's say you call preflop getting 5:1 and the odds for flopping a set is 8:1 (to make the numbers easier and to take into account the fact that you will sometimes make a set and still lose). So that's 3 SB's to make up postflop.

Now we say that you're getting 15:3 instead and the odds for flopping a set is 24:3. So now you have to make up 9 SB's instead!

So I'm basically repeating what you said here, but it was to convince myself about the math.

[milesdyson]

[ QUOTE ]
Calling a raise after completing in the SB is mathematically equivalent to calling a raise and a reraise after limping.

[/ QUOTE ]
this should read:

the difference between completing in the small blind and then calling a raise is mathematically the same as the difference between limping and then calling a 3-bet, with a slight difference. every time you complete the small blind, you will be closing the action when you call a raise. when you limp and then call a 3-bet, you will never be closing the action

[MrWookie47]

I also have another nit to pick. When you complete in the SB and then call a raise, you'll typically be up against a weaker set of hands than if you limp and then call a 3bet. This makes calling a raise in the SB more favorable.

[istewart]

Yes, I agree with most of your points, but often the cases are just obvious when you're at the table. Like say you're playing 6-handed and the button limps. You complete A5o and the BB raises. This hand just completely sucks to play here (and obviously getting 5:1 and being OOP is no benefit). But basically the hands you would fold here are the classic, unsuited, reverse-implied odds hands.

I guess it wasn't clear in the OP, but my main area of investigation here is the following: there are many situations in which it is correct to complete the SB, but to fold to a raise. I would like to determine those situations.

I'm more so comparing the idea of limping and calling a single raise to completing and then calling a single raise. SSHE provides a guideline stating that it is often correct to complete with any two suited cards. My guess (if anyone could do the math on this, that would be great) is that it is *still* correct to fold to a single raise, when you have two cards that you wouldn't have limped on the button.

Directly comparing coldcalling a 3-bet to complete-calling has an important distinction as well (besides closing the action). Since the bet sizes after the flop are always fixed, it is easier to make up 0.5BB postflop than 1BB. Therefore, you can call more liberally when complete-calling, vs coldcalling a 3-bet.

[tiltaholic]

i don't think it is (almost) ever correct to complete in the SB and then fold to a raise. if the BB was known to be capable of raising pf, many times it is correct not to complete in the first place.

on the other hand, more often it is correct to limp, then fold to a 3-bet should it be raised and reraised back to you.

so, i say that the 2 situations are definitely not euquivalent, mathematically or otherwise.

for the math...

in the case where you are completing and then calling a raise, you have "put in" 0.5 SB, and then another 1.0 SB.

in the case where you are limping and then calling a 3-bet, you have put in 1.0 SB, and then another 2.0 sb.


while similar in ratio, in the first case, for any future bets you must make up, you only need to account for half the predicted future pot size. so your implied odds need to be much greater in the second case to make it correct.

[tiltaholic]

[ QUOTE ]
You're probably right but I would put it like this:

Calling a raise after completing in the SB is mathematically equivalent to calling a raise and a reraise after limping in terms of implied odds.

Let's say you call preflop getting 5:1 and the odds for flopping a set is 8:1 (to make the numbers easier and to take into account the fact that you will sometimes make a set and still lose). So that's 3 SB's to make up postflop.

Now we say that you're getting 15:3 instead and the odds for flopping a set is 24:3. So now you have to make up 9 SB's instead!

So I'm basically repeating what you said here, but it was to convince myself about the math.

[/ QUOTE ]

see,your own example shows that calling a raise after completing is NOT mathematically equivalent to limping and calling a 3-bet.

using your numbers, getting 5:1 and needing 8:1.

limping getting 5:1 - you need to make up 3 SB.
limping/calling 3bet: getting 15:3 (needing 24:3) - you need to make up 9 SB.
completing getting 5:1 - you need to make up 3 SB.
completing/calling raise: getting 7.5:1.5 (needing 12:1.5) - you need to make up 4.5 SB

you only need half the bets in the second case.

[milesdyson]

there are definitely times where it is correct to complete and fold to a raise.

60/1 guy who will not open up his raising standards to an open limp is in the big blind, and you have T7o in the small blind. complete. fold to a raise.

[tiltaholic]

[ QUOTE ]
there are definitely times where it is correct to complete and fold to a raise.

60/1 guy who will not open up his raising standards to an open limp is in the big blind, and you have T7o in the small blind. complete. fold to a raise.

[/ QUOTE ]

yes. i agree there are times it can be correct to complete and fold to a raise from BB. it's just very rare (and especially rare compared to the number of times it is correct to limp and fold to a 3bet).

i wouldn't complete with T7o (in a half SB right?) but i agree that one of the times it's correct to complete/fold is when BB is super tight or passive and you can nail him to a premium hand when he raises in the bb.