#11
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Bottom set, 3 to the straight, 2, to the flush, unraised pot
Totally agree with raising pre-flop. If you get into multi limped pots with a number of people sneaking in cheap with trash then get all the money in on the flop you are left praying they turn over 2 pair. Often though you will see the nut straight or OE strt flsh draws etc with rubbish like 57s and the like. If they miss they fold out their trash when you bet strongly and you don't get mch money with your set. Only time not raising works is if a particular villian is prone to slow playing AA, KK then going broke on a low flop.
|
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Bottom set, 3 to the straight, 2, to the flush, unraised pot
I think raising pf here is terrible. However, I'm willing to be convinced otherwise. I'd like to see a discussion break off on this.
|
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Bottom set, 3 to the straight, 2, to the flush, unraised pot
For me the notmal cut off for raising v completing is 77. 66 I perfer completing but am not sure that raising is terrible.
|
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Bottom set, 3 to the straight, 2, to the flush, unraised pot
I don't like raising 6s out of the small blind. It's possible he has a straight(just because he should have raised the flop doesn't mean he did). I also think you are ahead here more often than not. Push the turn.
|
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Bottom set, 3 to the straight, 2, to the flush, unraised pot
I'm goin to have to think bout raising small pairs in the blinds. MP limper in this hand is total station and i think majority of the time he will call the raise and cb. So even if i did start raising 66 in the sb, i wouldn't in this case
|
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Bottom set, 3 to the straight, 2, to the flush, unraised pot
To add to this the old don't go broke in an unraised pot without the nuts or very close to it sort of sums it all up. When a number of people come in cheap you have not got a clue what they are holding.
|
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Bottom set, 3 to the straight, 2, to the flush, unraised pot
I'd raise 22 here. Can someone who thinks this is bad please explain why? Can they refute my points above? I don't really see what you're all thinking.
|
#18
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Bottom set, 3 to the straight, 2, to the flush, unraised pot
I dont raise PF - you are doing this becasue of implied odds right? They have limped so probably have a weakish hand and bad players. If they limp/call they are not going to flop a trong enough hand to give you implied odds
Either way it is close |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Bottom set, 3 to the straight, 2, to the flush, unraised pot
I would raise this if I thought a least two of the three limpers were capable of folding.
|
#20
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Bottom set, 3 to the straight, 2, to the flush, unraised pot
You should raise this unless your opponents love to call bets of 3 times the pot with middle pair or they're all shortstacks (in which case you should switch tables).
As played I bet around 7 on the flop, anything less than pot on a multiway limped draw-heavy flop is bad. |
|
|