Re: Razz - again weird with passive opponent
 

So because a player is tight you choose to give him massive credit when he raises in a 6-handed game in this spot? His spot is one where a normal player would raise 100 % of the time.

It doesn't really belong because we don't have that information when we make the raise, but just to prove you wrong I definitely read him for a steal attempt with a buried 9 in this hand. He 3-bet because he didn't want to admit he was stealing, and when he pairs up his 9 he is just too passive to continue aggression and try to take it down.

Re: Razz - again weird with passive opponent
 

OK - so what is your question?

Re: Razz - again weird with passive opponent
 

Well, I played it bad by neglecting to take it down in fifth, and instead got really lucky and caught good-good on 6th and river

Re: Razz - again weird with passive opponent
 

[ QUOTE ]
His spot is one where a normal player would raise 100 % of the time.

[/ QUOTE ]

Really? 100% of the time? I fold crappy hands in that situation all the time, and I think I'm pretty normal.

Maybe I misunderstood your first post, but to me, "tight" and "raises into one other low card 100% of the time in an unopened pot" are mutually incompatible.

Re: Razz - again weird with passive opponent
 

If I have a low card showing and there is only one other low card between me and the bring-in I raise damn near 100 % of the time

Re: Razz - again weird with passive opponent
 

[ QUOTE ]
Maybe I misunderstood your first post, but to me, "tight" and "raises into one other low card 100% of the time in an unopened pot" are mutually incompatible.
[ QUOTE ]
If I have a low card showing and there is only one other low card between me and the bring-in I raise damn near 100 % of the time

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]
I think the issue here is you, yourself, have said you aren't a tight player (or maybe I misunderstood) and brennan is saying as a tight player, that raising 100% in this situation isn't reasonable for someone who really is playing "tight." I think more aggressive players do this as a matter of course, as you do.

Re: Razz - again weird with passive opponent
 

I agre that since you said he is tight and because you haven't mentioned he is stealing more than his share a raise is wrong. If he doesn't fold on 4th, you are making his mistakes smaller or in fact correct to call on 4th.

He should bet out on 4th, whether he has pair his 9 or not. Even if you have to peal another due to the pot size. Its then a play for him to take it down on 5th or 6th.

Since he check 4th, you should bet 5th.

I would never bet on 7th. It is so unlikely he would call you without having you beat and could easily raise if he had a good hand.

Re: Razz - again weird with passive opponent
 

[ QUOTE ]
If I have a low card showing and there is only one other low card between me and the bring-in I raise damn near 100 % of the time

[/ QUOTE ]

So basically, you're making what is essentially a blind straddle bet. If that works for you (or for others), great, but I think it's also exploitable.

Realize that blindly raising in that situation is basically adding dead money to the pot and then giving your opponent the same opportunity that you just took -- the opportunity to raise against an opponent with random hole cards. Assuming this 6-handed FTP 3/6 exact ante/bring-in structure, he's also getting nearly the same pot odds on his re-steal attempt (he's getting 7:6) as you are on your steal attempt (you're getting 4:3). But your opponent has two advantages; he has less to fear from a re-raise, because the pot will be offering him odds to peel 4th with a much wider range of hands. He also can make it very expensive for the bring-in to decide to defend; that's something that you can't really do as the initial completer. Basically, if he raises your completion, the bring-in's potential pot equity is substantially lowered because the bring-in is very unlikely to call two bets cold with the potential of getting capped.

Do you see where this line of thought leads? If it's +EV for you to complete 100% of the time, wouldn't it arguably be more +EV for the other low card to raise you 100% of the time? I think that the slightly lower pot odds he's getting on a successful steal are outweighed by the much better pot odds he's getting to peel 4th when you re-raise and by the added equity from the bring-in either folding or putting money in as a probable underdog.


(Note that against certain opponents, completing 100% of the time may be the optimal play. No argument there.)

Re: Razz - again weird with passive opponent
 

[ QUOTE ]

Do you see where this line of thought leads? If it's +EV for you to complete 100% of the time, wouldn't it arguably be more +EV for the other low card to raise you 100% of the time? I think that the slightly lower pot odds he's getting on a successful steal are outweighed by the much better pot odds he's getting to peel 4th when you re-raise and by the added equity from the bring-in either folding or putting money in as a probable underdog.


[/ QUOTE ]
Arguably, yes, but I think it is harder to pull off than you think. I have experimented with reraising with any two card hand when I am to the direct left of a player of my own style. If they keep up aggression no matter what, it is quite difficult to outplay them imo.

Against me the strategy might work better since I will somewhat often fold to the reraise. If someone starts doing this to me I will leave the table and play PLO instead. Also, I color-code players according to how much they fold and seat-select