preflop min-bettors in micro and low stakes tournament poker

When I see someone making a preflop min-bet i should:

a) treat it as a weakness (min bettor: hey, i have a nice little speculative hand and would really love to see a cheap flop and prevent some idiot betting big before the flop)

b) treat it as a limp

c) respect it

d) it depends

If they make a habit out of min raising pf then it's probably a weak player you can push out of pots a lot. Usually I'll reraise them to get the initiative as if they limped.

A one off min raise is often AA, KK of course by some noob thinking he's clever. I'll call the raise very wide if the chips are deep enough. Any 2 cards that can make a straight (even 3 gappers) suited or not plus any 2 suited plus any pair of course.

just don't make a habit of calling that...that's his problem. at that point, i'm not in the hand unless i'm re-raising, and then we go from there, then it's 50/50 whether he folds or just flat calls you, very rarely see them raise back

I don't know the proper strategy for this min limp so I treat it as a limp
then do what I normally would have done with the cards/stack I have.
So I basically I ignore it. It does make the sb/bb decision to play or fold
more interesting.

I choose d because even at the micros, I have to take into account my position AND what kind of player is doing the limping. Also, do/does the limper(s) call big raises (4/5 BB), small raises(2/3 BB), will they call ace/rag out of pos? Just a couple of examples I look for. ESPECIALLY early in MTTs and STTs.

Something to think about, If they are willing to limp, it opens up my late pos. range by a TON. If others are going to let me see cheap flops with a wide range of hands, the better it is for me.

This is my worst nightmare. I have an above average hand and an early limper has now forced me to limp behind. Now the BB with a completely random (probably junk) hand is going to get a free chance to catch a monster and take it.

D) It depends, because at the lower stakes I still see alot of players who think that limping wih AA is the coolest move ever (still havent learnt the hard way that its not).

If I'm in postion and I know I can shake him off everything except the nutzzzzzzz- I raise. Blinds get irritated because they might have a nice looking (crap) hand that wants to see a flop for free.

And the answer I really choose is E) and E is: I have notes on this player and I know what he limps with. So, Im folding, or Im raising, or I'm limping and stealing.

Lata.

By the way I just noticed that you said Min bet. Apologies, I saw an opportunity to moan about limpers and took it. Min betting. I dont really know whta these people are trying to do. Are they trying to sweeten the pot or are they trying to get the BB (who is so priced in unless he is really short stacked or terrible hand) to fold.

I choose D, Im still willing to reraise however if he is weak-just to isolate and teach this puppy not to play with Big Dawgs.

yeah, i agree with your choice E. depending on what i have seen that player do or limp with in the past, I would raise or fold.

It depends a lot on the player. You see this a lot at micro stakes and the only way know how to play against a player who does this is to watch the hands they showdown and make notes. Some people do this as there standard raise and should be treated as a "normal raise". Some people do this with big hands they want action with and you can take advantage of the really good implied odds. While other will min bet with marginal hands they dont want to play a big pot with and you can put up dead money by raising they off their hand. There are also some people who are just carelessly pushing buttons in a drunken stupor and you really cant put them on a hand. So basically note taking will help to figure out what these mini bets mean and you can play accordingly.

I hate those people who only min raise. Only time I like it is when I'm in late position with soooooted connectors or a small pocket pair. Makes for some killer implied odds when there is a couple callers.

As for late SNG play when average stacks are 10 BB's or so I make all my steal raises minimum or min. + half min. When the table is tightening up and almost every hand is folded to the blinds makes for prime stealing time.This is the only time I min. raise. No reason to bet more when most will fold to any bet.

Some people will min. raise just SC's or small PP's. Pay attention and make a note of them. Some will min. raise monster hands in early position in an aggressive game hoping to get 3-betted. Then you got the people who min. raise any hand they are gonna play like they are playing FL. Make notes of this too.

Well,I guess the answer to OP is "D", all depends. I will always respect min.raise until I have reason to not.

Humm I will tend, to limp, if no one will respect, my raises...
A limper, i would raise.

I'm going w D.

Rather than thinking about what the minraise says about the players cards, think about what it says about the player.

You didn't specify MTT, SNG, or cash. In cash games (say 25nl up to 100nl), minraises lead me to question whether the player has a clue or not. There are appropriate situations in which to minraise, but if I see someone routinely minraising and I don't see a reason for it, I assume the player is a fish and act accordingly (i.e., attack).

In later MTT/SNG stages, minraising is not indicative of a fish. Before the antes kick in, I again assume a player who routinely minraises is a fish.

Fish get dealt AA just as often as the best players, so this doesn't mean their hand necessarily sucks. But it's easier to outplay a fish than someone who knows what they're doing.

Thank you guys for your answers. Now things are more clear to me. Yesterday i watched PokerStars Pro Tom McEvoy playing an online MTT. I watched first 5 levels (starting stacks 3000). When Tom decided to raise before the flop he was min-raising it 100% of time. And when he decided to bet on the flop, 100% of the time it was a min-bet. It was kind of strange watching a player of that caliber behaving like that. I guess he decided to try a small ball approach. Dan Harrington in his book talks about three different styles of play in NLH: TAG, LAG and super-aggressive (we dont need no stinking starting hand requirements LOL ). Dan writes that the basic idea of super-aggressive style is to see a lot of flops cheaply and to play a lot of flops cheaply. I guess Tom was trying to do just that.

I play a lot or micro cash games.95% of the time i am playing agenst players that are new and unexperianced.the people do not know what a good hand is or rspects your raise.A QJ lookes like a great hand for them so thay will call most rases.

So when playing unexperianced players i think it is ok to see the flop with a min raise and u should be able to out play the noobs.

If playing againsed better opponents,definat 3*BB raise or so.

Lazmansa

Thats interesting Pacman, about Tom McEvoy-I'd be moaning at him the whole time about the play and he would get under my skin. I watched the videos of Negreanu demonstrating small ball in one of the videos here. He talks about 2.5BB to 3BB as part of it. But, I'm sure min raising is the same as well.

Plus Tom can probably outplay most people on the flop so he doesnt need to invest that many chips. It would still bug the chit out of me. How do you combat this strategy? Wait for a hand and raise? or just raise him when you have position no matter what you hold?

When I sit down at a table, I like to think it's my table. So if someone like Tom kept doing it I would get very irritated.

This is a little different than what I was referring to - pros like McEvoy minraise because they believe they can outplay everyone else postflop - and they're generally correct. So if I see someone who's a stronger player than everyone else minraising, I exercise extreme caution.

I was referring more to the players you'll generally run into, not the pros.