Alan Goehring on min raising - do you agree?

[Lloyd]

[ QUOTE ]
Isn't that a good thing, to want your opponents to play 'correctly' and play hands that are dominated by you?

[/ QUOTE ]
The blinds are 50/100 and with AA you raise to 200. It's folded to the big blind who calls with 65s. He's getting 3.5 to 1 odds to call. Was his call correct?

Well, it depends on how well you play and how deep the stacks are. He's actually about a 3.5 to 1 dog IF he sees all 5 cards. That won't happen unless he hits the flop hard. If I remember correctly, with suited connectors I figure I need at least 20 to 1 implied odds against an overpair. So if I can win another 2,000 in chips then it makes sence for me to call. If instead you bet 300, and I had to call 200 more. Than I'd need to win another 4,000 in chips to make the call correct.

You can easily see how deep the stacks are, and how much you'll let me win if I do hit the flop, directly impacts whether or not calling is correct. But just by betting 3 BBs instead of 2 BBs pre-flop you have made it much more expensive for me to get paid off correctly and placed a larger emphasis on stack sizes than how well you play post-flop.

[deankeaton7]

nobody wants to play with allen post flop. The 2bb raise is just a pot sweetener for him really, bc he wants to get the game to all five streets.

Furthermore, he knows people are uncomfortable playing post flop with him, so why send a man to do a boys job (bet size, im talking about). Finally, the reraise he will have to call with a 2bb raise is smaller than that which would be a 3bb. basically, dont do this unless you are awesome.

[SossMan]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Isn't that a good thing, to want your opponents to play 'correctly' and play hands that are dominated by you?

[/ QUOTE ]
The blinds are 50/100 and with AA you raise to 200. It's folded to the big blind who calls with 65s. He's getting 3.5 to 1 odds to call. Was his call correct?

Well, it depends on how well you play and how deep the stacks are. He's actually about a 3.5 to 1 dog IF he sees all 5 cards. That won't happen unless he hits the flop hard. If I remember correctly, with suited connectors I figure I need at least 20 to 1 implied odds against an overpair. So if I can win another 2,000 in chips then it makes since for me to call. If instead you bet 300, and I had to call 200 more. Than I'd need to win another 4,000 in chips to make the call correct.

You can easily see how deep the stacks are, and how much you'll let me win if I do hit the flop, directly impacts whether or not calling is correct. But just by betting 3 BBs instead of 2 BBs pre-flop you have made it much more expensive for me to get paid off correctly and placed a larger emphasis on stack sizes than how well you play post-flop.

[/ QUOTE ]

great post.

this is this one in the anthology thread, too that is pretty good:

http://archiveserver.twoplustwo.com/show...rt=all&vc=1

[betgo]

[ QUOTE ]
nobody wants to play with allen post flop. The 2bb raise is just a pot sweetener for him really, bc he wants to get the game to all five streets.

Furthermore, he knows people are uncomfortable playing post flop with him, so why send a man to do a boys job (bet size, im talking about). Finally, the reraise he will have to call with a 2bb raise is smaller than that which would be a 3bb. basically, dont do this unless you are awesome.

[/ QUOTE ]

In a typical live tournament, there is 3xBB in blinds and antes. Therefore a lot of people raise 5xBB. If you miniraise, the BB is getting 5-1 pot odds. It is going to be very hard for CO and later not to call due to pot odds and/or position.

One of the advantages to this type of raise is no one has any idea whether you have AA or T7s or what. You also have a lot of options if you are reraised.

The book he was refering to was Erick Lingren's "Making the Final Table". Daniel Negreanu also talks about making a lot of small raises. If you are a LAG who is good postflop and way better than most of the table, this approach is effective.

A lot of players on line will make large raises which are pretty certain to be medium strength hands such as 99-JJ or AQ-AK. There are also tight players whose early position raises can be read as high pairs or big aces. The miniraising approach is more deceptive.

I personally almost never miniraise. However, I like to limp or make small raises. I think that gives you more flexibility and deception than larger raises. I like miniraises only when you have a good chance of taking the blinds with them.

[nath]

If online tournaments were deeper and slower, and you could be more confident that you could outplay your opponents on every street / you played as LAG as Alan does and played a very wide range of hands and also got more people to make moves at you as a result, you might be able to make these small raises and play like him and have it work.

Online, though, most players are straightforward enough and stacks are shallow enough that most decisions are made early in the hand, preflop or on the flop. Smaller raises aren't as effective for the nature of the game. Perhaps in something like the Stars $109 deepstack Alan's style could be implemented more properly and profitably.

You know, Alan is registered here. I've seen him post a couple times in WPT. I'd be interested in hearing him elaborate on his style, but I almost never see the big pros post strategy so I doubt we will.

[illegit]

[ QUOTE ]

A lot of players on line will make large raises which are pretty certain to be medium strength hands such as 99-JJ or AQ-AK. There are also tight players whose early position raises can be read as high pairs or big aces. The miniraising approach is more deceptive.


[/ QUOTE ]
No it isn't. if your opening raises are all 3x your opponents have no more or less info than if they're all 2x BB.

And even if you vary it randomly between 2.5-4x they still have no more information (unless you subconsciously do certain sizes with certain types of hands more often). But most good players make approximately the same opening raise regardless of the strength of their cards.

[Beachman42]

[ QUOTE ]
Smaller preflop raises mean that he's often allowing opponents to play correctly (according to the fundamental theory of poker) when they make a marginal preflop call. I don't see how that can be a good thing unless his skill edge is so large and he can read other players so well that it makes up for it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Um, read UCLA's link on his play. Pretty revealing! [img]/images/graemlins/smirk.gif[/img]

[DLizzle]

Preflop raising seems to be very inefficient compared to betting on other streets. When antes are not yet involved, a standard 3xbb raise means you are raising 3xbb to win 1.5xbb. How often do you raise double the pot on the flop, turn or river? a min raise makes more sense in this respect. It also controls pot size. If just the bb calls, the pot is 4.5bb as opposed to 6.5bb. When I call a min-raise out of the bb, it is to get in cheap and bust a player with a strong hand. Against a player who may or may not have a good hand, and is a strong enough player not to overplay their hand and go bust, this is not a good play. It just gives Alan or whoever more of a chance to crush you post-flop.

For a player who has mastered post-flop play, this seems like the way to go to me.

[betgo]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

A lot of players on line will make large raises which are pretty certain to be medium strength hands such as 99-JJ or AQ-AK. There are also tight players whose early position raises can be read as high pairs or big aces. The miniraising approach is more deceptive.


[/ QUOTE ]
No it isn't. if your opening raises are all 3x your opponents have no more or less info than if they're all 2x BB.

And even if you vary it randomly between 2.5-4x they still have no more information (unless you subconsciously do certain sizes with certain types of hands more often). But most good players make approximately the same opening raise regardless of the strength of their cards.

[/ QUOTE ]

Theoretically, if you always raise 3.5 x BB, you give no more information than if you always raise 2xBB.

However, if you raise 2xBB,you can put in a lot more loose raises. If you raise 3.5xBB, it is a lot harder to make early position raises, so you are more likely to have a big hand when you do. So your early position raises may be read as 99+, AQ+ or whatever.

If you are miniraising, it is a lot easier to raise in early position with suited connectors, small pairs or whatever. If you pick up a 3xBB pot with a 2xBB bet, that is an excellent result. If there is a lot of action, you can fold with minimal loss. You can fold to a reraise, call and hope to hit your hand or outplay your opponent, or put in a third raise as a semibluff. If you get called, you can represnet an ace, face cards, or an overpair on the appropriate flop. Plus you really might made a really big hand and thn people would have no idea what you have.

Suppose you really do have aces when you miniraise in early position. Then someone might raise and someone else put in a third raise before it got back to you with AK, QQ, or something, not paying a lot of attention to your usual miniraise with some junk. If you have one raiser, they may take your third raise as a move or you can flat call and they will alnmost certainly fire at the pot.

[mephisto]

Wouldn't it be great to get the man himself to elicit his views, Alan, where are you? Speak to us. :-)