Razz: Coming in for a complete bet instead of just posting the bring-in

Okay, so this has been going through my mind a bit lately. Speaking in terms of a a full or near full table (6-8 players), would we ever be right to bring it in for a complete bet instead of just posting the bring-in?

Clearly if we are posting the BI to start with then we are know we have the worst door card on the table, but does that necessarily preclude us from a move?

I can think of a scenario where it would seem reasonable and have seen similar scenarios before as well. Imagine:

Hero: 1,705
Seat 2: 2,100
Seat 3: 1,764
Seat 4: 1,059
Seat 5: 1,826
Seat 6: 2,000
Seat 7: 456
Seat 8: 1,090
3rd Street - (1.00 SB)
Hero: A 2♥ 7♠___???
Seat 2: xx xx 6♠___
Seat 3: xx xx A♣___
Seat 4: xx xx 7♣___
Seat 5: xx xx 6♥___
Seat 6: xx xx 2___
Seat 7: xx xx 2♣___
Seat 8: xx xx A♣___

I think this is a good example (which I obv weighted in our favor for discussion) of a hand where we are the BI but can actually complete to start off. It also illustrates why knowing dead cards is so imperative. As shown, five of our "pair" cards are already out while only two of our outs are gone (and those are sixes opposed to fives, fours, or treys). A quick simulation shows we are over 50% equity in this hand winning 50.7% of the trials.

But that's only one case and it's a bit extreme. Are there other more generic scenarios where we can complete our BI right off the bat? What kind of texture/scenario are we looking for? Or did I pretty much hit it with basically being that need to have a smooth 3-card 7 or 3-card 8 as well as hope to see many of our outs alive and pairs dead?


Other considerations I'm thinking about include tourney stage (early/mid/late), stack sizes, and ring game differences. But first is to tackle my primary question.

The primary advantage of being the bring-in, is that you are very unlikely to be first to act on subsequent streets. It depends greatly on the kind of players you're up against, but completing on third street might help buy you a free look at fifth street. So if you have A2K versus a bunch of players all with high upcards and the lowest one is to your left, then you're unlikely to get raised on third and you have a good shot at seeing a free fifth as it will check around to you. However, a lot of inexperienced players will raise you anyway with trash like 3TJ. Plus there's also the possibility that you would get to see a free fifth without needing to complete because it is clear that no one has a truly good hand. BTW, this isn't a play I've ever done, I'm just stretching for ideas.

But in the late stages of a tournament when the blinds are high and the play is tighter, I would complete some hands (like the A2 in the hole hands) as a part of an aggressive strategy. At that stage it's a lot more about playing their cards and their tendencies than it is about your cards. Still, I'm more likely to BI/call than complete, because while it's a long draw with A2, it can hit strong when it hits, so I'm not as obsessed with isolating.

And of course it goes without saying that in short handed and especially heads up play that you are very often justified in completing. There's just too good of a chance that your opponents' down cards are at least somewhat weak.

Completing gives the other players info. Avoid this by limping. Limping also allows you to raise any late position stealers. Never complete in a full ring game. There is really little benefit to it other that not allowing others to play for the bring-in price.

I think when you are on the BI it is best to do that. There are a lot of players to follow and you allow them to give you information rather than giving info. out. Let's you see where you stand. IMO.

This

If you watch players play any stud game live, they usually bring in without looking at their down cards.

I suppose some weird tournament situation might make bringing in for the complete bet the best play (tournaments always screw everything up), but I never bring in for a full bet playing cash.

Great thoughts on this, thanks. I hadn't considered the "information" aspect when I posted the question, but in retrospect it does make sense for full tables in a tourney.

On the flipside, I've found plenty of situations playing short handed or during HU razz where I complete the BI to open. Obviously I realize that wasn't the scope of my question though, I'm just saying is all. Doing so in the very late stages (last 2 or 3 in a STT) actually does have its place because it becomes a bit less about the cards and info you're giving out and more about playing the players. I don't do it every time obv, but there are very reasonable opportunities to do this short handed and win pots (sort of like big stacks pushing stacks that are trying to move up the ladder...for lack of a better analogy).

I think the problem is you'd have to balance it with the times you don't have a good hand. In the example above anyone competent would realize that you probably have A2 or maybe A3/23 as down cards. I don't play much razz but as long as you balance it with worse hands it can't be terrible. It's just when you only do it with a few hands and basically tell everyone else what you have.

The only time i think it is appropriate to complete instead of bringing in is when u r playing an opponent HU who is super aggressive and will reraise regardless of his hand he just knows his door card is lower so he will bet it out.

I don't think it is ever appropriate to complete instead of bringing in on a fuller table. There is too much to gain in just bringing in and hiding the strength of your hand by calling a complete bet ( this can also get u out of a pot cheaper, cashtable wise if you dont like ure next card and the opponent has hit a good card. Another option if it is a shorthanded table or HU is to bring in, let the person complete, and then raise because shorthanded a large percentage of hands would just be meer steals and raising allows yourself to make them a little more commited with the worser hand.

While writing this i thought of a possible opportunity when it may be ok to complete. it is when u have first joined onto a cashtable and u have a fairly weak hand with potential such as A2J. If you complete here you will probably be raised and u can call and u still have a fair chance if u get a nice card but when doing this you are advertising stupidity and playing like u are a big calling station/super aggressive player when infact u may be tight aggressive. This act might win u that pot but what it will do is set up pots for u down the track. When players do complete instead of bringing in it almost always indicates that they are a donkey, so those are the players u want to be getting your money from.

I think sida77's post is extremely insightful. And yes, your example is very extreme.

I also agree that completing is offerring too much info. But there are other reasons to not complete. 1) You KNOW someone else will, so the pot will build itself. 2) This is the bigger reason... You think it's fabulous that you don't need any of the cards out there, except the 6. But everyone is looking at the same door cards. And they've got a 3&4 - someone else a 4&5. You don't have these cards, you don't see them, someone's got to. Look to see who completes and who reraises. True, it's likely most have got at least 1 brick, but you'll find out who (or how many ) has/have the cards you need.

I am but a grasshopper compared to you here, but just thought I'd offer my take and see if it held any water for you.

This is a good example of how to use the information advantage you have by being the bring-in. Since your bet is forced, opponents will often discount you as having a lousy hand because even with a 7 or 8 up, you usually will. They, on the other hand, are making a decision about whether to limp, complete, raise, etc. which is usually based on the strength of their hand. Even better, if you bring in for a limp and in fact have a strong hand you can often raise a suspected ante stealer or when a lot of opponents flat call a completion and get more value out of your strong hand. (Don't think of this as "building a pot", that's not the way winning razz players think).

I'll have to take your word on the first part. Although I might give them credit for thinking "she's looking at the same A267s as I am".

As far as ante stealing...don't you think someone would be nuts to look at those low door cards and think they were gonna steal? My observations were based on this alone... That you don't see any 3, 4 or 5, and there are probably at least 2 or 3 of these in the holes. Anyone that has one along with another non-brick is possibly in the lead. I just see this as a hand I won't feel confident with until I see a 6 or at least a 3 4 or 5 QUICKLY. All depends on 4th St I guess.

What's wrong with building a pot? I'm thinking of situations where you might be A234Q, but the board looks favorable (high card, perhaps people with pairs of aces - 4s), and the odds look 'in your favor' to nail it.

I think he was just getting at how you look at your hand. Sort of a subtle distinction I guess, but by completing outright you're actually just "building a big pot", but by limping and maybe getting a complete from someone else you can now bet your hand for value (which also leads to a large pot but does so in a different way) based on the information you now have on the other players. Something along those lines is the way I see it. End result is similar, but information exchange and path to get there is different and more likely in your favor.

To me, "building a pot" implies that you're not mathematically ahead at the time but by making the pot bigger you can get more value out of it later (either by tying opponents on to a big pot so they call you down, or by stealing the pot on a later street when opponents are likely to fold). Neither of these cases comes up very often in razz, since most bad players are liable to call you with all sorts of junk when you hit your draws anyway (and don't fold much getting pot odds like 8 or 10 to 1). That doesn't mean you shouldn't be betting strong draws tho! There will be many times where your strong draw is a mathematical favorite to make the best hand and you should be charging your opponents to stay in your pot!

One situation I can see completing is near the bubble is in a tournament. When the blinds are high anyone completing usually steals the pot.

Tournament or Cash game?

Definitely in a position where you have Good starting cards and you Want action it is Best not to do a Complete and try and build the pot

A situation where there is a significant pot already, as a Cash game with a Lot of limpers ahead of you, or late in a tournament where the antes and bringins are significant, doing a Complete can drive out the number of players in the hand and potentially all fold to give you the pot.

The Complete does indeed offer the other players information, it is signaling the Strength of your starting cards. Often that can be an advantage when you are looking to steal the pot, make a continuation bet, or limit the number of players in the hand. Remember it also gives You information as to the potential strength of an opponents hand.

In Most cases it is also a situation where you would do a Complete when in Late position and a lot of limpers or the pot is worth attempting a steal.

Good Luck and Good Games!