Always raising a continuation bet after pre-flop raise

I was thinking about this for some reason.

Given the fact that you only hit a flop 1 in 3 times. If you are heads up in a pot and are faced with a continuation bet, why is it not always correct to raise with any two cards given the probability that your opponent has more than likley missed and will have to fold.

Of course, there are high pocket pairs which do not need to hit, which may make this play incorrect, but I just wanted to discuss it.

Hit a flop once every three, raise regardless of the cards and theoretically it is a +ev play? Or is it?

Martin

If you weren't the preflop raiser if you miss I think its best to fold so IMO no raise with any two cards is not an EV play. But if you have anything at all, even bottom pair, and you are facing what might be a continuation bet you should call or raise, since a continuation bet is possible and you could easily have the best hand.

I'm more interested in the math's of it lol. I know you are supposed to fold - I'm just posing a question theoretically

'Always' doing something in poker is a sure way to become exploitable in a hurry.

AG hit this right on the head.

The theory you're discussing here is actually the theory behind a cbet in the first place. They most likely missed so you cbet and will most likely take the pot. But if you always cbet, it's better to check-raise you because you'll most of the time lose these pots. Of course if you always raise cbets than the person cbetting could re-raise your raise because you do that with ATC and miss most of the time. The bottom line is you can't do anything all the time, and if you find someone who cbets 100% of the time, re-raising him most of the time is the correct play.

As mentioned, "always" is a bad word in hold em.

You need to have a great read to make this play viable. Also, the viability is increased when the cost of the play is smaller relative to your stack. You will find that this play will fail more because your opponent is a weak player than because he is strong. He may not be able to get away after his cbet, and if you are on a complete bluff, that is bad news for you.

Your opponent will typically have at least 1 big bullet left in his gun and he may fire at you because he feels committed after his initial raise and cbet. You dont want to be on a complete bluff here.

Perhaps a good test environment for this play would be in the form of a semi-bluff. When you have outs in case either of you can back down.

My point is that you need a reason to have called his preflop bet, and a subsequent reason to raise his cbet.

This is a very advanced play and should not be attempted against an opponent that you do not respect. If you are not sure that your opponent is capable of laying his hand down after committing 2 or more bets, the play won't be profitable.

Furthermore, when a player is willing to continue firing continuation bets whether he connects with the flop or not, it says something about his play. If he is obviously not getting respect on his cbets, yet is continuing to fire them, you may not want to make such an advance play against him. He may call you down with a better nothing than yours...

+ 1 to the "always is an evil word" count.

There's a few problems with always raising when your opponent bets on the flop.

First, they may not be c-betting. If your opponent bets the flop every time they've raised before the flop, regardless of the cards that hit, then maybe you've got a case. They're likely only hitting the flop one in three times. But if your opponent checks say, half the time, then they're more likely to have a hand when they're "c-betting".

Second, you're assuming your opponent will always leave you room to go over the top. You obviously can't go over the top if they raise pre-flop, then just shove the flop.

Third, assuming you find ideal conditions in the above two points, what do you do when your opponent makes the same realisation you have (that you're not hitting every flop) and starts three-bet shoving your raises?

I think it's an important move to have in your arsenal, but I don't think it's one that you should over-use as it carries a great deal of risk. Pick your situations and targets well, rather than try to apply blanket rules methinks.

It's a good question. It's difficult to guess exactly right because there are many things that "depend" but we can still make an estimation on whether or not it's profitable by assuming some values - without having to actually calculate exactly how profitable.

So, when we raise every time, we clearly want our opponent to fold most of the time. Therefore, the ideal (but somewhat realistic) opponent would be one who folds two times out of three; i.e. the times that he missed the flop.

If the pot is $X after he bets into you, and you want to make a pot-sized bluffraise, you're risking $X to win $X. So when you raise a dry flop that you missed your gain is:

- 33% * X You lose $X when he calls you and you're beat.
+ 67% *X You win $X when he folds.

For simplicity, we ignore the times that you have the winning hand even when called, but we also make an extreme assumption in what he'd fold so it ought to even out some. On the surface, and this is what you thought in your opening post, you have a winning proposal (+0.33X) in raising every flop. In practise, however, your opponent will quickly figure out what you're up to. He's going to start widening his range for which hands he calls a raise with on the flop, things like A-x and even king-high if your range is wide enough. He might trap you with strong hands, and worse, rebluff with some part of his range.

You have the right idea, though. If you have an opponent who always c-bets, strive to find the most exploitative way of dealing with him. And, to be fair, raising every time is not THAT bad of a strategy if you have a tight opponent who doesn't adjust well (chances are, though, that an opponent that c-bets 100% of the time isn't squeaky tight).

I think raising the c-bet of a player that c-bets too much (at my games the players almost always make a c-bet after they raised preflop) is a good strategy. But not with complete air, you should still have something. And not always, you should still look at the flop texture.

Also, if the effective stack is smaller than 100BB (let's say 50BB or 40BB) a pot-sized raise will commit you to the pot and your opponent can't try a 3bet-bluff. You can win the pot in 2 ways: making him fold and at the showdown. But he can win the pot only at the showdown(you are committed and he can't make you fold anymore). Most of the time he will fold. When he shoves, you should still call his shove(as long as you're no drawing dead) because you must draw out on him a very small percentage of the time. Of course, if the effective stack is >100BB it's more tricky to do this play.

well the thing is even though he didnt hit.. can you beat him.. you can re raise but if he goes over the top.. you've just given extra chips.. if he raised pre flop he could well have two overcards or soemthing... i mean it could work a few times but is it worth re raising double the amount to win 2 out of 3 hands.. the 1 hand you lose will cost you the 2 hands you win .. so i guess its not really advantageous... i dunno do the math who knows...

If you can put him on a range, you can fold instead of raise if the flop hits his range very often. For instance if you know your opponent raises from that position only pocket pairs and big cards, you don't raise his c-bet anymore if the flop has big cards. But a flop like 2 6 9 don't hit his range very often. He is more likely to have overcards than a set or an overpair. You will not raise him with 37o or 38o, so you will not be drawing dead if he doesn't fold. When I make this play usually I have at least overcards or a small pocket pair. Many of them aren't willing to continue with overcards. So you will win more than 2 out of 3 hands. But if he wants to continue with overcards and I have something like 33 or 44, I am the favourite, not him. After making that play a couple of times you will get paid very easy when you hit the flop, and when you don't hit the flop your opponent may start checking instead of making his usual c-bet, which is not bad for you because he's giving you a free card.

I think this play works better in tourneys where the effective stacks are smaller, and the raise commits you to the pot. Or in cash games if you or your opponent have a smaller stack. At 100BB stacks this play works better if your opponent is weak tight and he gives up easy.