2+2 vs. Hellmuth

[BlueSmurf]

Hello all

In my seemingly endless quest for a second game besides 7CS, I'm thinking about simply going "all things stud" - i.e. 7CS, S/8 and Razz. Soooo, I found Hellmuth's book on my shelves, ordered "Sklansky on poker" from my favourite book pusher and roamed the Internet.

Here's my question: In Hellmuth's section on Razz (I don't particularly like the guy, but I think it's great he puts a Razz section in his book), he advises you to raise a 6 on 3rd street vs. a 7. the idea is that if you catch bad on 4th and villain catches good, you have odds to peel. Now isn't that EXACTLY the opposite of what 7CSFAP tells you to do? Namely, not raise, because you will thereby make villain's inevitable peeling on 4th correct if you catch good and he catches bad?

Until I reach the level of mastery where I can divine 4th street cards, what should I do? I'm leaning towards Phil, because it's simple and correct and you cannot go wrong on 4th. Thoughts?

Cheers,

Smurf

[Dromar]

I'd raise too. There's nothing wrong with putting money in with the best hand.

[rae]

I'm no Razz expert, but here's my understanding of this concept.

In Sklansky on Poker, there are situations described where you are advised to re-raise on third, even though you are giving your opponent odds to peel on 4th. Sklansky puts a lot of emphasis on the cards that are out, so you won't always re-raise just because you have a 6 vs. a 7.

Even though your opponent is correct to take one off on 4th street because of the double bet, the re-raise adds a couple of things in your favor (assuming you catch good, and they catch bad):

1. Sometimes your opponent may just fold on 4th, even though they have odds to call -- especially if they were raising with a marginal hand on 3rd.

2. If you catch good and they don't improve on 5th, the pot should be yours (assuming you're not playing against a maniac).

Hope this helps.

Rich

[BlueSmurf]

Thanks for taking the time, Rich. My problem, however, is with the passage in 7CSFAP. I must say, I never cared too much for that passage, but I suppose the general idea is to play small-ball vs. worse players so that you yourself don't make their incorrect play correct all of a sudden. It just goes against everything I hold dear - in poker at least [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[blumpkin]

Also, the idea in 7CSFAP assumes that the opponent has what they are representing. Frequently this will not be the case.

[Beavis68]

hellmuth gives much advice that is overly loose/aggressive early in the hand

[BeerMoney]

I guess this is the same idea being discussed the other thread, but one thing that I haven't seen people mention is that by making this play, it takes your skill more into play.. That is, you use your potential to make better decisions on later streets.

[Alex/Mugaaz]

[ QUOTE ]
I guess this is the same idea being discussed the other thread, but one thing that I haven't seen people mention is that by making this play, it takes your skill more into play.. That is, you use your potential to make better decisions on later streets.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wouldn't it be more skillful to raise vs overly tight opponents and wait till 4th vs calling stations?

[RobbyD]

OK here is my take on the subject. Against a good player you should rerasie for value because they are going to play well anyways, and when you have the best hand you should put in the $. However, against a donkey you should not raise because you make him play right. Its the same concept of raising on 5th or the turn to knock out players for Big bets (and if they call that's a mistake too) instead of on 4th or the flop where it might be correct for them to call.

So, Sklansky's point is keep bad player's making mistakes. Hellmuth is not taking skill level in account.

[Andy B]

It's not 7CS4AP. It's Sklansky on Poker/Sklansky on Razz. He points out that if the other guy raises and you then raise, you will both be forced to continue on fourth street no matter what comes down. The loose player will call on fourth when he blanks off and you catch good. You would thus be causing a loose player to play correctly.

Sklansky is talking about a scenario in which you would be making it two bets to go. I haven't read that particular section of Phil's book, but I'm guessing that he's talking about making it one bet to go. The two ideas are not incompatible, and I do believe that Sklanksy advocates raising with strong low hands if no one else has yet raised. When he advocates flat-calling the other guy's completion, he's talking about manipulating the pot size so that your opponent will hopefully make mistakes on later streets.