Dumb minimum raises.

[amulet]

the minimum raise.

here is a play i see everyday, and i have no idea what the player is thinking?

i see it in nl play at both the high limits and the low limits. it tells me the player is clueless about the game. however, since many players do it, i wonder what they think is accomplishes?

several limpers, a late position player, or worse yet one of the blinds, makes the minimum raise possible. why? what are they thinking?
immediately think, this guy is building the pot, and has no clue, because no limper is folding to the minimum raise especially at nl..can anyone help me with their flawed thinking?

the other play i see often and think is incorrect in most instances is stealing the blinds in many cash nl games. they just are too small in relation to the stacks and the avg pot. i understand it in tournament play when the blinds are escalating , but in cash games it seems dumb most of the time

[ QUOTE ]
the other play i see often and think is incorrect in most instances is stealing the blinds in many cash nl games.

[/ QUOTE ]

you kinda lost credibility with that statement

[amulet]

why? i of course steal in the right game with the right hand too (and no hands sometiimes), but i see players doing it too often when there is just not enough money out there for the risk. maybe i should have explain more, my focas was on the minimum raise part of my post.

[esbesb]

I think it's dumb that you think it's dumb to steal blinds in a cash game.

I used to think mid-raises were dumb all the time, now I just think it's dumb most of the time.

ok, I suppose in certain situations you don't steal, like if the BB is a maniac who will re-raise with any two half the time

But the reason you give:

[ QUOTE ]
when there is just not enough money out there for the risk.

[/ QUOTE ]

is not a good reason not to do it

The thing is, even if your steal is 'unsuccesfull', you still have position and the ability to represent a wide range of hands for the next 3 streets

[amulet]

clearly you did not read my 2nd post, nor reply to the question. usless response.

i'm guessing the reasoning behind the minimum raise from a late position against several callers is to induce a reraise from another player and then go all in with AA or KK. or maybe the player just wants to juice up the pot and doesn't want to lose too many people. it may even be possible that the players are making the min. raise to look weak (not a good idea IMO) or they are raising with complete drawing hands like JTs. these are just some things i could think of that would explain these reasons, and i do not necessarily condone them. it depends on who your opponents are.

[arod15]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
the other play i see often and think is incorrect in most instances is stealing the blinds in many cash nl games.

[/ QUOTE ]

you kinda lost credibility with that statement

[/ QUOTE ]

agreed

[amulet]

all your reasons make sense. but thyese are not what most of the players who make min raises are doing.

I can't remember ever seeing AA or KK min raise with a bunch of limpers in the pot since I stopped playing 10c/25c NL. It's usually done with a pocket pair or suited connectors or AXs to "build a pot". Dumbest thing I've ever seen, it lets any decent player narrow down their hand range. Sometimes, if it's HU after the flop these guys will min bet as a continuation bet, and think they'll get respect.
I don't know, I feel like it's an absolutely ridiculous move. And yet people keep doing it. I see it OFTEN at the 2/4 games, do you guys get it at higher limits too? Is tehre possibly something I'm missing here?