[Closed] tpmk re-raise

Preflop:
Isolation is ok, but not mandatory.
Flop:
I don't like the raise. There are almost no draws, so I would've just called to let him valubet himself or bluff on the turn and river. Probably call the turn and reevaluate the river.

I'd say nh!
I also raise flop in this situation if opp is not a huge calling station. you do't have a strong kicker, thus u can't usually play for value against 2 opponents.
raise flop and take dow the pot here when it's reachable or find out where you stand -> reevaluate t when he calls u

@mishuq
The problem with raising the flop against a tag for example is that you isolating against a stronger range. There is no reason for raising.
The reason for betting are: value - here it doesnt make sense to raise for value against a tag because he wouldnt call worse.
Bluff - There is no point in bluffing against higher aces and 2p+ because he won't fold them often enough to make it profitable.
Capitalize on dead money - Used most of the time to make him fold his equity in the pot. On dry A high boards, this doesn't apply very well as any two cards which did not pair are drawing almost dead.

I still believe calling and letting him bluff is better because it is a way ahead/way behind situation.

1. I agree with your reasons for betting, I know them quite well but we're talking about a raise; not for value but for pot control
2. this isn't a bluff since we do have TP on a dry board (we can't just assume he'd continue with a gutshot)
3. if we call instead of raising on flop we don't have any information about what he's holding. a raise imo still has fold equity, represents a strong(ish) hand, will not look like a bluff since we're the pf aggressor, will put villain in a difficult spot on turn (without trips or top 2 pairs he will make mistakes playing oop) and in the end we invest less money if we're behind because we can always comfortably fold after this move.

as u said, we don't play this for value, that means we don't want to see him bluff after the flop. in worse case we still get to see the river for free 90% of the times

anyway, I'm not arguing my line is the best, I just think that (for my style of play) this move is still +ev at least at the lower limits
I still get your point, but a call on the flop even tho against 2 players puts you in slowplay, and if he's only a bit agressive on future streets he may bet more than you should call with this hand to be profitable

Hi,

I'm going to side with x3mwisp on this one, as this is how I would tend to play it myself and I'm having trouble understanding mishuq's reasoning overall. And I apologize in advance if I sound a bit harsh overall but it looks quite messy to me, I think it's important for you to sort everything out correctly.

The reasons for raising are the same as the reasons for betting, both are just a matter of deciding whether it's in your best interest to put more money into the pot yourself. Unless you start making information raises, which most of the time are just a poor attempt at sacrificing ev to simplify decisions. You aren't "pot-controlling" in the common sense if you purposely shovel more money into the pot with a somewhat marginal holding. You're just announcing you aren't ready to make a somewhat blurry call down, so you'd rather throw a bunch of money in there and possibly isolate yourself against better hands (making a possibly bad raise instead of making possibly bad calls later on), so that you have an easier time finding a fold or seeing a showdown (which might not even happen, that guy might call the flop with a gutshot and jam his busted hand on the river if you check back the turn, he's a loose aggressive fish after all).

So in this hand I prefer to keep all his random hands in the pot rather than to tell him "I have an ace, please fold" by raising. Representing a strong hand when you actually have one just sounds fundamentally bad, you don't make money at poker by showing your cards to your opponent. We don't care about fold equity either, we're pretty sure we're ahead of his leading range. We're totally playing that hand for value either way, and we want him to bluff or valuebet worse after the flop.

It'd be better if it actually looked like a bluff rather than a strong hand, since he might attempt to rebluff us or ship over a worse Ax, hence i disagree about it being an easy fold after we raise and he 3-bets, which makes the "it costs less money" argument moot too. If we waste a raise and end up folding when he jams KQ or A2 it's a huge mistake. We'd for sure hope for that to happen with a hand like AQ in that spot, but with A8 we're that much more likely to actually get shipped on by a better Ax, so we're not that comfortable calling it off, which is why we're better off not putting ourselves into a situation where we need to make that decision to begin with until we're sure he's spazzy enough for us to stack off with marginal Ax hands.

When we call he might or might not continue to bet on the turn, either way given our read that he's loose aggressive he'd probably both check/call and bet small again on most turns with a ton of hands we beat somehow, so he'll make mistakes on his own , that's what fish do. Thus we're fine calling down and being beat at showdown this particular time if it so happens, as we're fairly certain we're ahead of his range most of the time and we'll yield a profit in the long run.

Hope it helps.

hi there how about the 2 players behind? if i do call dont i invite the 2 players behind into a multiway pot?

so if villain is a tag you shouldn't raise cause u might isolate yourself against a stronger hand. but oh wait....he's a loose fish....hmm
"he'd likely call a raise" and "he'd likely not 2nd barrel turn" is a bit too much. well idk.. if u manage to explain this whole reasoning to a player who's making his way up at 0.2/0.5 $, you should also be able to tell him why basic articles about not playing made hands passively against 2+ players are wrong.
maybe I'm a bit harsh, but I still wouldn't like the ideea of calling down donk bets blindfolded holding a marginal hand ♠_confused:
thx for the input anyway, any poker related discussion helps for game & mindset.

Okay. Explaining this to a nl5 player is easy. Your hand is strong enough to call a bet, but not strong enough to raise because you only have TPNK. Second if the players behind call then you only get additional value which is good. There still is no reason for raising and as tamairlarace said the reasons for betting equals to the reasons for putting money in the pot. On this subject I would recommend a book to be read which is Balugawhale's Easy Game. He explains very well reasons for betting in his first chapter i guess.

Hi,

Originally posted by cutegoldfish
hi there how about the 2 players behind? if i do call dont i invite the 2 players behind into a multiway pot?

Sure we do, but what will they call with anything? They can't have straight draws nor flushdraws on that board, the best they'll come up with are the few Ax hands that beat us (against which we don't want to raise anyway) and KQ/QT/KT + random wheel gutshots against our hand. We're quite happy if they wanna tag along with that or Jx or 99 because it's cheap or whatever they can find a call with. They can't get odds to mathematically be correct to overcall us, we have no reason to be worried yet when they don't raise. If they raise it probably means we're not far ahead at all, so we can get away cheaply.

Just because you don't define their ranges further by playing passively doesn't mean you're not making the right play, since you keep all worse hands in there drawing slim and avoid putting yourself in awkward spots for big amounts of money.

Originally posted by mishuq
so if villain is a tag you shouldn't raise cause u might isolate yourself against a stronger hand. but oh wait....he's a loose fish....hmm
"he'd likely call a raise" and "he'd likely not 2nd barrel turn" is a bit too much. well idk.. if u manage to explain this whole reasoning to a player who's making his way up at 0.2/0.5 $, you should also be able to tell him why basic articles about not playing made hands passively against 2+ players are wrong.
maybe I'm a bit harsh, but I still wouldn't like the ideea of calling down donk bets blindfolded holding a marginal hand ♠_confused:
thx for the input anyway, any poker related discussion helps for game & mindset.

Well of course in the end you do whatever you want, I'm just saying "feeling blindfolded" isn't a valid reason for doing anything.

Originally posted by x3mwisp
Okay. Explaining this to a nl5 player is easy. Your hand is strong enough to call a bet, but not strong enough to raise because you only have TPNK. Second if the players behind call then you only get additional value which is good. There still is no reason for raising and as tamairlarace said the reasons for betting equals to the reasons for putting money in the pot. On this subject I would recommend a book to be read which is Balugawhale's Easy Game. He explains very well reasons for betting in his first chapter i guess.

I agree with that follow up but I doubt nl5 players will be able to afford this book Tho I guess there are ways other than paying for it.

Hope it helps.