stud 8 hand

[Andy B]

I want to say that the article is by Keith Sexton (I think that's his name), who is notorious for educating the marks on FT. That's a minor reason why I never played there much. I don't really find the arguments compelling. Folks say that by bringing it in full, you give up too much information. Everyone seems perfectly willing to raise when next to act after the bring-in, though. Is being second to act out of eight really that much better than being first to act? You raise under the gun in hold'em all the time, right?

The situation in which I am most likely to bring it in full is when I have a big pair in the hole and one of my trip cards is dead. I don't mind buying the antes, and in any case I want to thin the field as much as possible, and this is my best chance to do so.

[myammy]

that seems to be what ray zee was saying when someone brings it in full. it was usually 3 to a good low or a big pair. a hu type of hand. I figured people were going to call anyway since it's such low stakes so may as well build a pot. i am certainly open minded about the whole thing though

[2461Badugi]

[ QUOTE ]
Some will tell you never to bring it in for a full bet, but no one has ever adequately explained why, in my opinion.

[/ QUOTE ]

It discourages loose action. Why would you want to do that with a good hand in a small pot?

This is different from completing vs. limping UTG because simply entering the pot voluntarily already has a discouraging effect.

[Andy B]

[ QUOTE ]
This is different from completing vs. limping UTG because simply entering the pot voluntarily already has a discouraging effect.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a good point. I also like bringing it in for the minimum and occasionally raising when it comes back to me. It discourages people from pimping my bring-in, keeps them off-balance, and it's just a peck of fun. All this said, I still don't see why one should never bring it in full.