[jbrennen]

[ 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.)