Raise or Fold theory

I have met poker players who espouse the Raise of Fold Theory. They never call. I have never been able to play that way but would like to understand that style of play.

When I come upon it I usually leave the table. In tourneys I will often get into blind troubles because I don't know how to combat it. I hate to three bet without the nuts.

They, never call, is that pre-flop or they just never call at all.

It's all about getting the power of advantage in the table, those theories mark calling as weakness.

Personally I think the point should be in the middle, folding or raising always isn't the proper way to go sometimes.

When I come across this in a game, I take note of that person's tendencies, and try to see what they are raising with. In other words pick up on their range of hands. I then adjust my game to how I believe they are playing. Nothing like a big reraise to let them know you won't be pushed around. Usually,IMO, raise or fold strategy is used to steal blinds.

is there a link w/ detailed description of this w/ listed pro's n con's id like to learn more about this

It is all about being aggessive and some say that agression is a good thing as in poker as you know when to use it.

"I hate to three bet without the nuts."

Your 3betting range should be relative to Villain's range - search for some of the discussions in the tournament forum regarding ICM and re-stealing, and read c9's Golden Archive thread on 3betting.

sorry. I'm one of those people. hehehe

I don't like that style either and feel it will eventually catch up to them. Calling is just another tool as is min-betting. There is a place for all these tools, I think. Natsg got it about right...observe and see what their range of hands is for various positions. Wally

I think B/F has a lot of merit for a grinder especially in Unl at the point that you dont dissect specific hands as much while you play. setting a standard of playing pure B/F really simplifies your decision making process.

IMO if you hit a monster flop, raising may hurt your chances of developing a big pot. Also if you have a lot of limpers and you are in late position with a marginal hand (suited connector) it is probably are a better choice to call. Absolutes don't work with me, everything is situational.

I've always heard the raise or fold concept used only pre flop. Why would you go raise or fold only post flop?

thanks for the help sly! the direction helped alot

I personally only ever raise or fold if I'm opening, and I always raise by the same amount (although this amount may vary by position).

I can't think of a time when I'd be happy to open limp into a pot...

if you are only betting strong with the nuts, these players will pick up on that and play even stronger into you to get you off more pots

I think this is a good thing for players who are overly passive to try to understand.

In fact part of the beauty of poker is that it can be played in many different ways.

I think it might be possible to play a style where you never call and still profit. I think you would need to be fairly tight. And as an pure exercise (something along the lines of playing PLO and never folding pre flop) it might be useful and at certain stakes, even profitable.

That said the style would be fairly easily exploitable (ironically sometimes by playing a passive sort of "trappy" game).

In the end calling is a powerful weapon in your arsenal. It is easily overused, but removing it entirely is foolish.

The Raise or Fold theory only applies pre-flop

Well my comments pretty much still stand.

Infinate pre flop agression may help loose passive players learn to consider their situation more carefully, but never calling means missing opportunities.

It's kinda like the argument that "open limping is never good". For the most part it's true, but it is easy to give real world examples when it is a viable strategy.

Playing in the AF extremes pre-flop or not is a little one dimensional. Useful perhaps, but not optimal.

Please give the real world examples? I'm more curious than doubtful

In a live, full ring low stakes loose passive cash game I think it would be silly not to open limp with things like suited aces, or small pairs. The competition is not going to see your hand turn up and there is nothing better than a multiway pot full of minbetting stations when you have nine outs to the nuts on two streets.

Similarly at a table where you are OOP on a maniac, are dealt a giant pair and it is folded around to you in the small blind or cutoff I could see completing with the intent to check raise him on his inevitable raise.

I think blanket strategies work fine at tables full of decent players, or when you are playing so many tables the real nuances are missed...

This has turned into a very insightful post I want to thank everyone for contributing. I have played this out some and feel its is useful but I still limp.

You see alot of people who play the short stack strategy that raise or fold and never call. The idea behind it is to raise with premium hands and fold with marginal ones. So that you can hopefully get a big pot on someone calling your raise.

I like that theory, but I think everything is situational. There's gonna be times when you don't want to raise (Ex. when you flop the nuts) or fold a semi-crappy hand (If you have position and it's been folded to you or limp)