Help me understand the mind of the OOP minimum raiser

[steamboatin]

[ QUOTE ]


Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I think the primary purpose is to unsettle players as it obviously bothers you and also to set them up for a big play later.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



lol. Well, it doesn’t bother me at all if I’m one of the limpers... I either limped to see a cheap flop or I limped at an aggressive table, hoping someone reopened the betting for me. This min raise is cool with me in either of those cases. They have given me an easy decision.
It does, however, bother me in the BB when the SB does it. I have a decision I am not comfortable with... I have great implied odds to call with virtually any 2 cards, but I’m throwing those chips away most of the time. When an EP limper puts in a real raise after the SB reopens the betting... Oh, yeah, that really bothers me!

If anyone fully understands Rolf’s explanation, or has one of their own... please share.

[/ QUOTE ]

Bothers you enough to make a post about it in this forum. I think another poster has it right about building a bigger pot when they hit a set and I think you somewhat answered your own question when you mentioned that the mini raisers had everything from AA to junk. It seems to work well in keeping the competition from reading your hand.

If you play a lot of NL cash games, you should buy Rolf's DVD's.

[AlanBostick]

I'm playing 6 tables. I've got pocket tens on Table Asinine, and I've flopped top set on a board of T[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img]9[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img]8[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img], and the big blind has just pushed all-in. Am I ahead here, drawing to ten outs, or drawing dead?

Damn, I just got KK at Table Eeyore! Goddamn slider, I don't have time to size my bet. F**k it, I'll just click "raise." Back to my real problem.

[Ignignokt]

[ QUOTE ]
I don’t know of any reason to min raise

[/ QUOTE ]

Sklansky and Miller would disagree (and do in their NL book).

With a hand that can win a big pot if it flops big (like a mid/small pair), a minraise can help get the pot to a size where top pair/overpair will find it harder to get away from their hand.

And if it also gets under the skin of the "never, ever minraise" disciples, so much the better.

[runout_mick]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
a lot of decent players do it to build a pot. They have 55 in a 4 way limped pot against a bunch of donks, they raise small OOP trying to get a larger pot incase they hit a set.


[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks. I'm starting to think that is the standard reasoning, although I have seen showdowns where the OOP min raiser has had everthing from AA to suited connectors.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's decent players. Donks do it because they see the pretty raise button: "Click! That was fun!".

Personally, I never do it as (IMO) it becomes easy to read, and exploitable.

[theman]

Generally speaking, the min raiser (ESP out of position) has pocket Aces or Kings and is trying to keep a few people in for a greater profit. Doing so is a pretty bad play as you suggested, since with that many limpers/callers, those Aces or Kings are probably in grave danger when the flop hits. The better play would be to make one big raise in hopes of either isolating OR taking the pot right there.

Any other two cards from an OOP min raiser does seem ridiculous, UNLESS we are talking about deeeeep stack poker with relatively low blinds. In such a case, mixing up your play can be profitable if you hit a strong hand and can confuse your opponent into calling you. But if the stacks are small and/or blinds are high, min raising out of position really has no value, imo.

Respectfully,
-TheMan

[miketurner]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I don’t know of any reason to min raise

[/ QUOTE ]

Sklansky and Miller would disagree (and do in their NL book).

[/ QUOTE ]

Really? I didn't know I was mentioned in their book. I’m gonna have to sue them. [img]/images/graemlins/mad.gif[/img]

The rest of your reply was quite helpful, thanks.